natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its letter of 31 January 2007 the SFF referred, inter alia, to:
V dopisu z dne 31. januarja 2007 se je združenje SFF med drugim sklicevalo na:
the existence of a new Act, i.e. that the Housing Act had replaced the State Housing Agency Act,
novi zakon, ker je Stanovanjski zakon nadomestil Zakon o Državni stanovanjski agenciji,
the creation of a new legal entity, the Housing Financing Fund which replaced the State Housing Board/State Housing Agency and took over the assets and obligations of the State Building Fund and the Workers’ Housing Fund,
ustanovitev nove pravne osebe, sklada HFF, ki je nadomestil Državni stanovanjski svet/Državno stanovanjsko agencijo in prevzel sredstva in obveznosti Državnega gradbenega sklada in Delavskega stanovanjskega sklada,
the introduction of new lending instruments, with cash loans instead of housing bonds and less social assistance in housing matters, change of maximum level of funding of the purchase, lifting of restrictions on sale of owner-occupied social housing, abolition of priority right and changes with regard to the nature of the entities eligible for loans,
uvedbo novih posojilnih instrumentov z gotovinskimi posojili namesto stanovanjskih obveznic in z manjšo socialno pomočjo v stanovanjskih zadevah, spremembo najvišje ravni financiranja nakupa, odpravo omejitev za prodajo socialnih stanovanj, v katerih živijo lastniki, odpravo prednostne pravice in spremembe v zvezi z naravo subjektov, upravičenih do posojil,
the change in the sources of financing: Under the Housing Act the Housing Financing Fund, unlike its predecessors, does not receive any direct state contributions.
spremembe v virih financiranja: v skladu s Stanovanjskim zakonom sklad HFF v nasprotju s svojimi predhodniki ne prejema neposrednih državnih prispevkov.
In its letter of 28 March 2008, the SFF has argued that the relevant legal test should consist of a comprehensive assessment of the HFF system rather than an individual analysis of the identified possible aid measures.
Združenje HFF je v svojem dopisu z dne 28. marca 2008 trdilo, da bi moralo biti ustrezno pravno merilo sestavljeno iz celovite ocene sistema HFF, ne pa iz analize posameznih opredeljenih morebitnih ukrepov pomoči.
In the opinion of SFF, the individual components of the system are so closely interwoven that it would amount to an unjustified artificial division to split them up in the assessment of whether the measures have the character of new or existing measures.
Po mnenju Združenja SFF so posamezni elementi sistema tako tesno prepleteni, da bi bila njihova delitev pri ocenjevanju, ali imajo ukrepi značilnosti novih ali obstoječih ukrepov, neutemeljena in umetna.
Such an approach would, in the opinion of SFF, not be in line with the practice of the European Commission in similar cases.
Tak pristop po mnenju združenja SFF ne bi bil v skladu s prakso Evropske komisije v podobnih primerih.
Finally, the SFF invites the Authority to take account of the factual development with regard to the amount of loans granted by the HFF and its market share compared to that of the private banks.
Nazadnje, združenje SFF poziva Nadzorni organ, naj upošteva dejanski razvoj, kar zadeva znesek posojil, ki jih je odobril sklad HFF, in njegov tržni delež v primerjavi z deležem zasebnih bank.
THE HFF NOT BEING SUBJECT TO CAPITAL ADEQUACY REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM SOLVENCY RATIO RULES, IS NOT STATE AID
TO, DA ZA SKLAD HFF NE VELJAJO ZAHTEVE KAPITALSKE USTREZNOSTI IN PRAVILA O NAJMANJŠI STOPNJI PLAČILNE SPOSOBNOSTI, NI DRŽAVNA POMOČ
The Authority has found it useful to start its assessment with the question of whether the fact that the HFF is not subject to capital adequacy requirements and minimum solvency ratio rules constitutes State aid.
Nadzornem organu se je zdelo koristno začeti oceno z vprašanjem, ali to, da za sklad HFF ne veljajo zahteve za kapitalsko ustreznost in pravila o najmanjši stopnji plačilne sposobnosti, pomeni državno pomoč.
As already indicated, the Banking Directive sets out the requirements for capital adequacy and the rules for a minimum solvency ratio applicable to credit institutions throughout the EEA.
Kot je že bilo navedeno, so v Bančni direktivi določene zahteve za kapitalsko ustreznost in pravila o najmanjši stopnji plačilne sposobnosti, ki se uporabljajo za kreditne institucije v vsem EGP.
In the opening decision, the Authority took the preliminary view that the exemption of HFF from the Banking Directive did not constitute State aid.
Nadzorni organ je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka sprejel predhodno stališče, da izvzetje sklada HFF iz Bančne direktive ne pomeni državne pomoči.
However, it found that the question raised such doubts that it was useful to assess the question under the formal investigation procedure.
Vendar je ugotovil, da je v zvezi s tem vprašanjem toliko dvomov, da bi ga bilo koristno oceniti v formalnem postopku preiskave.
This assessment has led the Authority to confirm its preliminary opinion for the following reasons:
Pri tej oceni je Nadzorni organ potrdil svoje predhodno mnenje zaradi naslednjega:
First, as also indicated in the opening decision, HFF does not constitute a credit institution covered by the Banking Directive as it is not permitted to receive any deposits or other repayable funds from the public.
Prvič, kot je navedeno tudi v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, sklad HFF ni kreditna institucija, na katero se nanaša Bančna direktiva, in od javnosti ne sme sprejemati depozitov ali drugih vračljivih sredstev.
Second, Article 2(3) of the Banking Directive contains a catalogue of institutions exempted from the application of the provisions of the directive.
Drugič, v členu 2(3) Bančne direktive je seznam institucij, izvzetih iz uporabe določb te direktive.
The decision of the EEA Joint Committee included the ‘Byggingarsjóðir ríkisins’, in that list.
S sklepom Skupnega odbora EGP se je na ta seznam vključil izraz „Byggingarsjóðir ríkisins“.
That term was traditionally used for the funds which have now been taken over by the HFF.
Ta izraz se je tradicionalno uporabljal za sklada, ki ju je prevzel sklad HFF.
Hence, regardless of whether that provision is constitutive or merely restates what already follows from the normal rules of the directive, it is the Banking Directive as adapted to the EEA itself that exempts HFF from its ambit and the capital adequacy requirements and minimum solvency ratio laid down therein.
Zato je, ne glede na to, ali je ta določba temeljna ali je v njej le na novo opisano to, kar izhaja že iz običajnih pravil Direktive, sklad HFF v skladu s samo Bančno direktivo, prilagojeno za EGP, izvzet iz njenega področja uporabe ter zahtev za kapitalsko ustreznost in pravil o najmanjši stopnji plačilne sposobnosti, določenih v njej.
Even when assuming that an exemption from the directive entailed that the HFF would be granted an advantage, the measure would not be imputable to the Icelandic State, but to the EEA Joint Committee, and would accordingly not constitute State aid [32].Third, even if HFF had been covered by the Banking Directive, any exemption would not have entailed a transfer of State resources, as the State would not forego any revenue in such a situation.
Tudi če se domneva, da bi izvzetje iz Direktive pomenilo, da je bila skladu HFF odobrena ugodnost, tega ukrepa ne bi bilo mogoče pripisati islandski državi, ampak Skupnemu odboru EGP, skladno s tem pa ne bi pomenil državne pomoči [32].Tretjič, tudi če bi se za sklad HFF uporabljala Bančna direktiva, izvzetje ne bi povzročilo prenosa državnih sredstev, ker se država ne bi odrekla prihodkom v takih okoliščinah.
JOINT CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO THE STATE GUARANTEE, THE INTEREST SUPPORT, THE EXEMPTION FROM INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX AND THE LACK OF DIVIDEND PAYMENTS
SKUPNI PREMISLEKI V ZVEZI Z DRŽAVNIM JAMSTVOM, SUBVENCIONIRANJEM OBRESTI, IZVZETJEM IZ DAVKA NA PRIHODEK IN NEPREMIČNINSKEGA DAVKA TER NEPLAČEVANJEM DIVIDEND
THE DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR NEW AND EXISTING AID
RAZLIČNA POSTOPKA ZA NOVO IN OBSTOJEČO POMOČ
The procedure for new aid is laid down in Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 SCA (corresponding to Article 88(3) EC).
Postopek za novo pomoč je določen v členu 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču (ki ustreza členu 88(3) Pogodbe ES).
If the Authority is in doubt about the compatibility of such an aid measure, it shall open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 SCA (corresponding to Article 88(2) EC) and in Article 4(4) of Section II in Part II of Protocol 3 SCA.
Če Nadzorni organ dvomi o združljivosti takega ukrepa pomoči, sproži formalni postopek preiskave, predviden v členu 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču (ki ustreza členu 88(2) Pogodbe ES) in v členu 4(4) oddelka II v delu II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
The procedure for existing aid is different from that pertaining to new aid and is laid down in Article 1(1) in Part I of Protocol 3 SCA.
Postopek za obstoječo pomoč se razlikuje od postopka za novo pomoč in je določen v členu 1(1) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
Pursuant to that provision, the Authority shall, in cooperation with the EFTA States, keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States.
Na podlagi teh določb Nadzorni organ v sodelovanju z državami EFTA nenehno pregleduje vse sisteme pomoči, ki so na voljo v zadevnih državah.
It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Državam predlaga ustrezne ukrepe, potrebne zaradi postopnega razvoja ali delovanja Sporazuma EGP.
According to the European Court of Justice:
Navedbe Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti:
‘[…] when the Commission examines aid measures under Article 87 EC to determine whether they are compatible with the common market, it is required to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC where, after the preliminary examination, it has been unable to overcome all the difficulties involved in determining whether those measures are compatible with the common market […] The same principles must naturally apply where the Commission also entertains doubts as to the actual classification as aid, within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, of the measure examined.
„[…] mora Komisija, kadar presoja ukrepe pomoči glede na člen 87 Pogodbe ES, da bi ugotovila, ali so združljive s skupnim trgom, uvesti postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES, če po predhodni preučitvi ne more ovreči vseh težav, ki onemogočajo sklep o združljivosti teh ukrepov s skupnim trgom […]. Enaka načela se morajo seveda uporabljati, kadar ima Komisija še vedno dvome o opredelitvi ukrepa, ki ga presoja, za pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission cannot therefore be criticised for initiating the procedure even where, in the decision adopted for that purpose, it expresses doubts as to the status as aid, within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, of the measures covered by it.
Zato Komisiji ni mogoče očitati, da je uvedla navedeni postopek, tudi če je v odločbi, sprejeti v ta namen, izrazila dvome o naravi pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, na katero se ukrepi nanašajo.
[…] the Commission must undertake an adequate examination … on the basis of the information already communicated to it by that stage by the Member State, even if the outcome of that examination is a non-definitive classification of the measures examined.
[…] mora Komisija zadostno presoditi […] na podlagi informacij, ki jih je na tej stopnji dobila od navedene države, tudi če ta presoja ukrepov ne bo dokončna.
[…] If that information enables it, for the purposes of a provisional assessment, to take the view that the measures at issue probably in fact constitute existing aid, the Commission must then deal with them within the procedural framework provided for in Article 88(1) and (2) EC.
[…] Če ti podatki v okviru predhodne ocene dopuščajo verjetnost, da gre pri obravnavanih ukrepih dejansko za obstoječe pomoči, jih mora Komisija tako obravnavati v postopkovnem okviru, določenem v odstavkih 1 in 2 člena 88 Pogodbe ES.
On the other hand, if the information provided by the Member State is not such as to justify that provisional conclusion or if the Member State provides no information on the matter, the Commission must deal with those measures within the procedural framework provided for in Article 88(3) and (2).’In other words, any assessment made in a decision to open the formal investigation procedure as to whether a potential aid measure constitutes new or existing aid is necessarily only of a preliminary nature.
[…] Nasprotno pa mora Komisija, če podatki, ki jih predloži država članica, ne dopuščajo takega predhodnega sklepa oziroma če država članica glede tega ne predloži nobenega podatka, te ukrepe obravnavati v postopkovnem okviru, določenem v odstavkih 3 in 2 istega člena.“Z drugimi besedami, vsaka ocena, ki se opravi v okviru odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi s tem, ali morebitni ukrep pomoči pomeni novo ali obstoječo pomoč, je nujno samo predhodna.
It therefore follows from case law that even if the Authority, in an opening decision, initially took the view that the measure in question constituted new aid, it can still, in the decision concluding that procedure, find that the measure in fact constitutes existing aid or that it does not amount to aid at all.
Iz sodne prakse zato izhaja, da lahko Nadzorni organ, tudi če je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka sprejel stališče, da je zadevni ukrep nova pomoč, v odločbi o zaključku tega postopka vseeno ugotovi, da je ukrep dejansko obstoječa pomoč ali sploh ni pomoč.
Where existing aid is involved, the Authority has to follow the procedure for existing aid [34].
Kadar gre za obstoječo pomoč, mora Nadzorni organ uporabiti postopek za obstoječo pomoč [34].
Accordingly, in such a case the Authority would have to close the formal investigation procedure and open the different procedure for existing aid laid down in Articles 17 to 19 in Part II of Protocol 3 SCA [35].
Skladno s tem bi moral Nadzorni organ končati formalni postopek preiskave in sprožiti drugačen postopek za obstoječo pomoč, določen v členih 17 do 19 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču [35].
Under this latter procedure, and only under that, the Authority would assess whether an existing aid measure is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.The information presented to the Authority at the time when it decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure was ‘not such as to justify’ the provisional conclusion of the aid being existing and the Authority therefore dealt with these measures in the framework of the rules pertaining to new aid.
Na podlagi postopka za obstoječo pomoč in samo v njegovem okviru bi Nadzorni organ presodil, ali je obstoječi ukrep pomoči združljiv z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.Informacije, predložene Nadzornemu organu, ko je sprejel odločitev o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, so bile „take, da niso upravičevale“ začasnega sklepa, da je pomoč obstoječa, zato je Nadzorni organ te ukrepe obravnaval v okviru pravil, ki se nanašajo na novo pomoč.
However, as this initial view has been contested by the Icelandic Government, the Authority will in the following assess the question anew in the light of the material now presented by the Government and by the SFF.
Ker islandska vlada izpodbija to začetno stališče, bo Nadzorni organ v prihodnosti to vprašanje znova presodil glede na gradivo, ki sta ga zdaj predložila vlada in združenje SFF.
As already indicated, the Authority will conclude on the existence and compatibility of new aid measures under the formal investigation procedure.
Kot je že bilo navedeno, bo Nadzorni organ ugotavljal obstoj in združljivost novih ukrepov pomoči v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave.
In contrast, if the instruments in question do not constitute new aid, the Authority cannot under the present procedure make a binding assessment as to whether they instead constitute existing aid within Article 61(1) EEA.
Če v nasprotju s tem zadevni instrumenti ne pomenijo nove pomoči, Nadzorni organ v skladu s tem postopkom ne more sprejeti zavezujočega mnenja, ali namesto tega pomenijo obstoječo pomoč iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Nor can the Authority make a binding assessment as to whether such existing aid measures would be compatible with the Agreement.
Nadzorni organ tudi ne more sprejeti zavezujočega mnenja, ali so taki obstoječi ukrepi pomoči združljivi s Sporazumom.
Hence, before concluding on the question of new or existing measures, the Authority will in the following base itself on the assumption that the following measures are state aid: state guarantee, tax exemption, interest support and relief from paying dividends.
Zato se bo pred sprejetjem ugotovitve v zvezi z vprašanjem novih ali obstoječih ukrepov Nadzorni organ v nadaljevanju opiral na domnevo, da so naslednji ukrepi državna pomoč: državno jamstvo, davčna oprostitev, subvencioniranje obresti in oprostitev plačila dividend.
THE LEGAL TEST
PRAVNO MERILO
Article 4 of the Authority’s Decision 195/04/COL provides that an alteration to existing aid is any change, other than modifications of a purely formal or administrative nature, which cannot affect the evaluation of the compatibility of the aid measure with the common market.
V členu 4 Sklepa Nadzornega organa 195/04/COL je določeno, da je sprememba obstoječe pomoči kakršna koli sprememba razen povsem formalnih ali upravnih sprememb, ki ne morejo vplivati na vrednotenje združljivosti ukrepa pomoči s skupnim trgom.
Moreover, as regards the legal assessment of whether aid is new or existing, the Court of Justice stated in Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit, that:
Poleg tega je Sodišče evropskih skupnosti v zvezi s pravno presojo, ali je pomoč nova ali obstoječa, v zadevi Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit navedlo:
‘[…] the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid cannot be assessed according to the scale of the aid or, in particular, its amount in financial terms at any moment in the life of the undertaking if the aid is provided under earlier statutory provisions which remain unaltered.
„[…] nastanka nove pomoči ali spremembe obstoječe pomoči ni mogoče ocenjevati glede na obseg pomoči ali zlasti njen znesek v finančnem smislu v katerem koli obdobju delovanja podjetja, če se pomoč dodeli v skladu s predhodnimi zakonskimi določbami, ki se niso spremenile.
Whether aid may be classified as new aid or as alteration of existing aid must be determined by reference to the provisions providing for it.
Ali se pomoč lahko opredeli kot nova pomoč ali sprememba obstoječe pomoči, je treba določiti s sklicevanjem na določbe, v katerih je določena.
The decision which entered into force on 1 February 1989 did not amend the legislation which accorded to the OND the advantages which it enjoyed, either in regard to the nature of those advantages or even in regard to the activities of the public establishment to which they applied, since the Law of 31 August 1939 set that establishment a very general aim of reducing the risks of providing credit for exports.
Odločba, ki je začela veljati 1. februarja 1989, ni spremenila zakonodaje, v skladu s katero so bile OND odobrene ugodnosti, ki jih je imel, ne v zvezi z naravo teh ugodnosti ne v zvezi z dejavnostmi javne ustanove, na katero so se nanašale, ker je bil v Zakonu z dne 31. avgusta 1939 za to ustanovo določen zelo splošen cilj zmanjševanja tveganj pri zagotavljanju posojil za izvoz.
It does not therefore affect the aid arrangements put in place by that legislation.’The Court went on to conclude that a factual extension of the undertaking’s activities would not suffice to alter the classification of an aid measure:
Zato ne vpliva na ukrepe pomoči, uvedene v skladu s to zakonodajo.“Sodišče je ugotovilo, da dejanska razširitev dejavnosti podjetja ne zadošča za spremembo opredelitve ukrepa pomoči:
‘To take the contrary view would in effect be tantamount to requiring the Member State concerned to notify to the Commission and submit for its preventive review not only new aid or alterations of aid properly so-called granted to an undertaking in receipt of existing aid but also all measures which affect the activity of the undertaking and which may have an impact on the functioning of the common market, on competition or simply on the actual amount, over a specific period, of aid which is available in principle but which necessarily varies in amount according to the undertaking’s turnover.
„Sprejeti nasprotno stališče bi bilo dejansko enako kot zahtevati od zadevne države članice, naj obvesti Komisijo in ji predloži v preventivni pregled ne samo novo pomoč ali ustrezno opredeljene spremembe pomoči, dodeljene podjetju, ki prejema obstoječo pomoč, ampak tudi ukrepe, ki vplivajo na dejavnost podjetja in bi lahko vplivali na delovanje skupnega trga, konkurenco ali preprosto, v določenem obdobju, na dejanski znesek pomoči, ki je načeloma na voljo, vendar se nujno spreminja glede na prihodek podjetja.
Ultimately, in the case of a public undertaking such as the OND, each new insurance operation which, according to the information provided at the hearing by the Belgian Government, must be submitted to the supervisory authorities, could thus be regarded as a measure to which the procedure laid down in Article 93(3) of the Treaty applies.
Nazadnje bi bilo v primeru javnega podjetja, kakršno je OND, mogoče vsak nov zavarovalni posel, ki ga je treba v skladu z informacijami, ki jih je na glavni obravnavi predložila belgijska vlada, predložiti nadzornim organom, obravnavati kot ukrep, za katerega se uporablja postopek iz člena 93(3) Pogodbe.
Such an interpretation, which does not correspond to either the letter or the purpose of Article 93(3), nor to the division of responsibility between the Commission and the Member States for which it provides, would give rise to legal uncertainty for undertakings and Member States, which would thus be obliged to notify in advance widely differing measures, which could not then be put into effect despite doubts as to whether they could be classified as new aid.
Taka razlaga, ki ne ustreza črki in namenu člena 93(3) niti razdelitvi odgovornosti med Komisijo in državami članicami, določeni v tem členu, bi povzročila pravno negotovost za podjetja in države članice, ki bi zaradi tega morale vnaprej priglasiti zelo različne ukrepe, ki nato ne bi mogli stopiti v veljavo, kljub dvomom, ali se lahko opredelijo kot nova pomoč.
[…]’In Government of Gibraltar v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that:
[…]“Sodišče prve stopnje je v zadevi Vlada Gibraltarja/Komisija odločilo, da:
‘it is only where the alteration [in national law] affects the actual substance of the original scheme that the latter is transformed into a new aid scheme.
„samo, kadar sprememba [nacionalne zakonodaje] vpliva na dejansko vsebino prvotne sheme, se ta preoblikuje v novo shemo pomoči.
There can be no question of such a substantive alteration where the new element is clearly severable from the initial scheme.’In the assessment of whether a change to an aid measure has the effect of turning hitherto existing aid into new aid, the Commission has examined whether the change is substantive in nature [39].
Taka vsebinska sprememba ne more biti vprašljiva, kadar je novi element mogoče jasno ločiti od prvotne sheme“.Pri presoji, ali ima sprememba ukrepa pomoči tak učinek, da se zaradi nje dosedanja obstoječa pomoč spremeni v novo pomoč, je Komisija preučila, ali je sprememba vsebinska [39].
In this respect the Commission has taken account of the nature of the advantage, the aim pursued with the advantage, the basis on which the advantage is made, the persons and bodies affected by it and the relevant sources of finance.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija upoštevala naravo ugodnosti, cilj, ki naj bi se dosegel z ugodnostjo, podlago, na kateri ugodnost temelji, osebe in subjekte, ki jih zadeva, ter ustrezne vire financiranja.