natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ventetiderne på ankommende bagage var faldet, og rettidigheden på landinger forvaltet af SEA var forbedret.
Waiting times for arriving baggage had improved and calls managed by SEA had seen their punctuality improve.
De italienske myndigheder mente samlet set, at SEA's adfærd i det foreliggende tilfælde var fuldstændig sammenlignelig med adfærden hos en privat koncern, som førte en strukturpolitik og foretrak at kompensere en af sine divisioners tab indtil videre med henblik på at forbedre dens langsigtede rentabilitet, idet den tog hensyn til andre faktorer af finansiel eller ikkefinansiel art, som hang sammen med koncernens økonomiske interesser.
In conclusion, the Italian authorities considered that SEA’s conduct in the case was perfectly compatible with that of a private business group which was pursuing a structural policy and which preferred to compensate the losses of one of its business divisions for the present, with a view to improving long-term profitability and in consideration of other factors of a financial or non-financial nature that were inherent to the group’s economic interests.
I modsætning til Kommissionens argumenter blev det derfor påvist, at der fandtes solide udsigter til en tilbagevenden til rentabilitet inden for en rimelig tidshorisont, idet SEA Handling konstant forbedrede sin økonomi i perioden 2003-2005 trods det manglende held til at finde en strategisk minoritetspartner og trods den vanskelige markedssituation.
Contrary to the Commission’s arguments, therefore, the existence of solid prospects for a return to profitability within a reasonable time was demonstrated by the constant economic improvement seen by SEA Handling in the period 2003-2005, despite its inability to find a strategic minority partner and despite the difficult market situation.
Med hensyn til foranstaltningernes antagelighed hævdede de italienske myndigheder først og fremmest følgende:
Regarding the admissibility of the measures, the Italian authorities essentially made the following claims:
i betragtning af de konstante tab i ground handling-divisionen, selv før stiftelsen af SEA Handling, stod det klart, at selskabet var i vanskeligheder allerede den dag, det blev sat i drift, ii) omstruktureringen af SEA Handling byggede på en omstruktureringsplan bestående af forskellige dokumenter vedrørende perioden 2003-2010 med henblik på at genoprette rentabiliteten i ground handling-forretningen, iii) disse dokumenter beskriver nærmere SEA's strategi og planen over de foranstaltninger, der skulle træffes.
considering the constant losses recorded by its ground handling divisions, even prior to the formation of SEA Handling, it was clear that the company had been in difficulty since the date it went into operation; (ii) the restructuring of SEA Handling was based on a restructuring plan consisting of various documents regarding the period 2003-2010, aimed at restoring the profitability of its ground handling business; (iii) those documents set out in detail SEA’s strategy and the schedule of measures to be taken.
Mere specifikt blev der i den konsoliderede forretningsplan for 2002-2006 fastlagt følgende foranstaltninger til genopretning af produktiviteten i ground handling-forretningen og forøgelse af indtjeningen:
More specifically, the 2002-2006 consolidated business plan laid down the following measures for recovering ground handling productivity and increasing revenue:
incitamenter til nedbringelse af fraværet blandt de ansatte
incentives for reducing the employee absentee rate;
digitalisering og rationalisering af kontoraktiviteterne
computerisation and rationalisation of operating branch activities;
overtid tillades
allowing overtime;
integration af Malpensa lufthavns sektor A og B i januar 2002
integration of Malpensa airport sectors A and B as of January 2002;
indførelse af nye ansættelseskontrakter med flekstid og
introduction of new employment contracts with flexible hours;
foranstaltninger til nedbringelse af personaleoverflytningstid.
and measures aimed at reducing staff transfer times.
Yderligere hævdede de italienske myndigheder, at en af de vigtigste omstruktureringsforanstaltninger var udvælgelsen af en minoritetsaktionær.
Additionally, the Italian authorities argued that one of the most important restructuring measures was the selection of a minority shareholder.
For det andet var der ifølge de italienske myndigheder i forretningsplanen 2003-2007, som var koncentreret om SEA Handling, nævnt en række hovedfaktorer, som havde negative virkninger for selskabets drift.
Second, according to the Italian authorities, the 2003-2007 business plan, which was centred on SEA Handling, identified the main factors having negative effects on the functioning of the company:
Det var især personaleomkostninger, der blev nævnt, sammen med organisatoriske ubalancer og utilstrækkelig teknologisk innovation.
it cited in particular the cost of labour, organisational imbalances, and insufficient technological innovation.
I dokumentet nævntes de vigtigste foranstaltninger, der skulle til for at genoprette produktiviteten:
The document indicated the principal measures needed to restore company productivity:
forøgelse af selskabets markedsandel, ii) foranstaltninger til øget teknologisk innovation, iii) foranstaltninger til forbedring af tilpasningsevnen efter kundebehovet, iv) gennemgang af dyre aktiviteter uden for kerneområdet, v) nedbringelse af personaleomkostninger, vi) genopretning af indtjeningen fra andre aktiviteter end ground handling-ydelser.
increase of the company’s market share; (ii) measures to increase technological innovation; (iii) measures to improve adaptability to customer needs; (iv) review of non-core activities with high costs; (v) reduction of labour costs; (vi) recovery of revenue from activities other than ground handling services.
For det tredje bemærkede de italienske myndigheder, at sammendraget af retningslinjerne for SEA-koncernens strategiske plan 2007-2012 af 11. maj 2007 (»Executive Summary — Linee guida del piano strategico 2007-2012 del gruppo SEA — 11 maggio 2007«) omfattede en plan i tre faser med henblik på genopretning af SEA Handlings rentabilitet inden 2011.
Third, the Italian authorities observed that the document ‘Executive Summary — Linee guida del piano strategico 2007-2012 del gruppo SEA — 11 maggio 2007’ (Executive Summary: Guidelines for the SEA group’s 2007-2012 strategic plan, 11 May 2007, hereinafter ‘the 2007-2012 strategic plan’) included a three-phase plan aimed at returning SEA Handling to viability by 2011.
Målet at få ground handling-forretningen tilbage til rentabilitet var også synligt i SEA-koncernens strategiske plan for 2009-2016 og SEA-koncernens forretningsplan for 2011-2013.
The aim of returning its ground handling business to profitability was also apparent in the SEA group strategic plan for 2009-2016 (‘the 2009-2016 strategic plan’) and in the SEA group business plan for 2011-2013 (‘the 2011-2013 business plan’).
For det fjerde hævdede de italienske myndigheder, at der ikke forekom konkurrencefordrejning, eftersom de omhandlede foranstaltninger var nødvendige for liberaliseringen af markedet.
Fourth, the Italian authorities argued that there was no distortion of competition, since the measures in question were necessary for liberalising the market.
Under alle omstændigheder var der truffet foranstaltninger til at sikre, at konkurrencen ikke var unødigt fordrejet, især den gradvise nedbringelse af arbejdsstyrken (med 1 755 job i 2003-2010) og en nedsat tilstedeværelse på markedet (en fuldstændig tilbagetrækning fra alle områder uden for kerneforretningen, afvikling af afisningsaktiviteten og det forgæves forsøg på at sælge en minoritetsandel i SEA Handling).
In any event measures had been taken to ensure that competition was not unduly distorted, most notably the gradual reduction in employment levels (with 1 755 jobs cut in 2003-2010) and reduced market presence (a complete withdrawal from all non-core business; the ending of de-icing activity; and the failed attempts to sell a minority share in SEA Handling).
Endelig hævdede de italienske myndigheder, at støtten tydeligvis var begrænset til det nødvendige minimum i betragtning af selskabets tab på driften og det nødvendige beløb til sikring af den fortsatte levering af ground handling-ydelserne.
Finally, Italy contended that the aid was clearly limited to the minimum necessary, given the operating losses sustained by the company and the amount needed to ensure continuity of ground handling operations.
Støtten resulterede ikke i en forøgelse af selskabets markedsandel på konkurrenternes bekostning, eftersom der ikke blev truffet investeringsforanstaltninger, som ikke var inkluderet i omstruktureringsplanerne.
The aid did not result in an increase in the company’s market share to the detriment of its competitors, since no investment measures were taken that were not included in the restructuring plans.
I sine bemærkninger støttede SEA de italienske myndigheders argumenter og uddybede visse aspekter.
In its observations, SEA supported the arguments presented by the Italian authorities, and elaborated on certain aspects.
Tilregnelse til den italienske stat af foranstaltningerne til dækning af tab
The imputability to the Italian State of the measures for the coverage of losses
Kommissionen havde hævdet, at kommunen havde spillet en aktiv rolle i fagforeningsaftalen af 4. april 2002.
The Commission had asserted that the Municipality had played an active role in the union agreement of 4 April 2002;
SEA begyndte at se nærmere på Stardust Marine-dommen og argumenterede for, at bevisbyrden med hensyn til tilregnelse lå hos Kommissionen, og hævdede, at dokumentationen i det foreliggende tilfælde var begrænset i mængde og uklart i indhold og sammenhæng.
SEA began by looking more closely at the Stardust Marine judgment, arguing that the burden of proof with regard to imputability lay with the Commission, and asserting that the evidence provided in the case was limited in volume and was flimsy in content and consistency.
Der var en langt mere solid og meningsfyldt moddokumentation, der viste, at SEA havde truffet sine valg med hensyn til omstrukturering af SEA Handling uafhængigt af andre.
There was far more solid and meaningful counterevidence to show that SEA had made its choices with regard to the restructuring of SEA Handling independently.
Aftalerne med fagforeningerne var rettet mod at forsikre de ansatte om, at deres rettigheder ville blive garanteret, og at jobbevaringsforanstaltningerne i SEA's strategi ville blive gennemført.
The agreements reached with the union organisations were aimed at reassuring employees that their rights would be safeguarded and that the employment protection measures based on the strategy adopted by SEA would be implemented.
SEA's bestyrelse havde besluttet at omstrukturere koncernen, men havde ikke givet tilsagn om, at antallet af ansatte i løbet af omorganiseringen ikke ville blive skåret ned, hvis markedssituationen krævede det.
SEA’s board of directors had decided to reorganise the group, but had not given any commitment that in the course of the reorganisation staff numbers would not be cut in the light of market demands.
Alle beslutninger om at skære ned eller omstrukturere forretningen hidtil var fuldt ud baseret på økonomiske hensyn, og kommunen og de politiske kræfter, som var repræsenteret der, havde ikke spillet nogen rolle af betydning.
All decisions to cut or restructure the business up to the present day were based entirely on economic considerations, and the Municipality and the political forces that were represented there had played no significant role.
De sociale hensyn var tydeligt afspejlet både i lovdekret nr. 18/99, paragraf 14, som omhandlede »socialsikring«, og i direktiv 96/67/EF, hvori man anerkendte, at medlemsstaterne »bør fortsat have beføjelse til at sikre et passende socialt beskyttelsesniveau for de ansatte i de virksomheder, der leverer ground handling-ydelser« (betragtning 24), og tillod medlemsstaterne at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til beskyttelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheder »med forbehold af anvendelsen af bestemmelserne i dette direktiv og under hensyn til de øvrige bestemmelser i fællesskabsretten«.
Social concerns were clearly reflected both in Legislative Decree 18/99, Article 14 of which was concerned with ‘social protection’, and in Directive 96/67/EC, which acknowledged that Member States ‘must retain the power to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of undertakings providing ground handling services’ (recital 24), and went on to authorise Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure protection of the rights of workers, without prejudice to the application of the Directive and ‘subject to the other provisions of Community law’.
SEA havde frit truffet sine forretningsbeslutninger, og sociale hensyn havde kun spillet en rolle, hvis der var lovkrav at overholde.
SEA had taken its business decisions freely, and social concerns had played a role only within the limits imposed by the legislation.
Desuden havde Kommissionen set bort fra en del moddokumentation, som Milano kommune havde fremlagt, nemlig det forhold, at de forpligtelser, der angiveligt var indgået i forbindelse med fagforeningsaftalen af 26. marts 2002, aldrig var blevet ført ud i livet, og at de havde en begrænset varighed.
Moreover, the Commission had ignored certain counterevidence suggested by the Municipality of Milan, namely the fact that the commitments allegedly given in the union agreement of 26 March 2002 had never been applied, and the limited duration of those commitments.
Kommissionen hævdede, at kommunen udøvede tilsyn.
The Commission alleged that the Municipality exercised supervision;
SEA anførte, at selskabet havde fuld beslutnings- og ledelsesmæssig uafhængighed, og at det udøvede sin uafhængighed frit og uden indflydelse fra Milano kommune eller provinsen Milano.
SEA stated that it had full decision-making and managerial independence, and that it exercised that independence freely, without any influence being brought to bear by the Municipality or the Province of Milan.
Selskabets ledelse var bestyrelsesmedlemmernes ansvar alene, og eksterne enheder (f.eks. kontrollerende aktionærer) kunne ikke udøve bestyrelsesmedlemmernes beføjelser og funktioner.
Corporate management was the exclusive responsibility of the directors, and outside entities (e.g. controlling shareholders) could not exercise the powers and functions of directors.
Selv om man for argumentationens skyld antog, at den offentlige majoritetsaktionær almindeligvis kunne udøve faktisk indflydelse på SEA's ledelsesinstansers beslutninger, er den afgørende faktor til påvisning af, at der forelå tilregnelse til staten i henhold til Stardust Marine-dommen, ikke organisationsstrukturen, men den faktiske involvering i de omstridte beslutninger.
Even if it were to be supposed, purely for the sake of argument, that the majority public shareholder could ordinarily exercise effective influence over the decisions of the SEA’s governing bodies, the crucial consideration in order to show that there was imputability for purposes of the Stardust Marine judgment was not the organisational structure but actual interference in the disputed decisions.
Ifølge SEA skulle Kommissionen tage større hensyn til de divergerende holdninger, der kom til udtryk på mødet i Milanos byråd den 16. juni 2003, hvoraf referatet entydigt viste selskabets beslutningstagnings- og ledelsesautonomi, idet byrådsmedlemmerne dels anerkendte SEA's afvisning af at fremlægge fortrolige oplysninger, som blev brugt i forhandlingerne med fagforeningerne, dels afviste et forslag om at kræve, at byrådet skulle bede SEA forelægge en forretningsplan, et forslag, som ikke blot ville være blevet vedtaget, men som det aldrig havde været nødvendigt at fremsætte, hvis Milano kommune faktisk havde øvet eller været klar over, at det kunne øve den indflydelse, som Kommissionen syntes at ønske at tillægge den.
According to SEA, the Commission had to take greater account of the contrasting positions which emerged at the meeting of the Milan Municipal Council on 16 June 2003, the minutes of which unequivocally demonstrated the company’s decision-making and managerial autonomy, on the one hand when the municipal councillors acknowledged SEA’s refusal to provide classified information that was being discussed in negotiations with union organisations, and on the other in light of the rejection of a motion calling on the Municipal Executive to ask SEA to present a business plan: not only would this motion have been approved, but there would never have been any need to put it forward, had the Municipality of Milan actually exercised or had it been aware that it could exercise the influence which the Commission seemed to want to attribute to it.
Med hensyn til »blankoopsigelserne« føjede SEA til udtalelserne fra Milano kommune, at formanden for revisorudvalget på SEA's generalforsamling den 24. februar 2006 havde bekræftet, at ingen af bestyrelsesmedlemmerne var blevet bedt om at underskrive et sådant brev.
Concerning the ‘blank resignations’, SEA added to the statements made by the Municipality of Milan that at the SEA general meeting on 24 February 2006, the chairman of the SEA board of auditors had confirmed that none of the members of the board had been asked to sign such letters.
Alle svarene, der blev givet på det møde vedrørende blankoopsigelser, var tydelig dokumentation imod den teori, at der forekom en særlig afhængighed af Milano kommune.
All the answers given at that meeting with regard to blank resignations were clear evidence against the theory that there was a relationship of particular dependency on the Municipality of Milan.
Desuden imødekom bestyrelsen, som bekræftet af SEA's formand på samme møde, ikke aktionærernes anmodning om, at der skulle udbetales et udbytte på mellem 250 og 280 mio. EUR, men fastsatte i stedet rådighedsbeløbet til 200 mio. EUR og traf dermed en beslutning imod kommunens ønske, hvilket viser, at selskabet ikke var blevet påvirket af eksistensen af disse breve.
Moreover, as affirmed by SEA’s chairman at the same meeting, the board of directors did not comply with the shareholder’s request that a dividend of between EUR 250 million and EUR 280 million should be distributed, and instead set the amount available at EUR 200 million, thus taking a decision against the wishes of the Municipality and showing that the company had not been influenced by the existence of these letters.
Endelig lå beskyldningerne om, at SEA's bestyrelse var afhængig af Milano kommune, hvilket var blevet rapporteret i medierne, tilbage i 2006 og beviste intet med hensyn til den indflydelse, som kommunen måtte have øvet på SEA før da. Der var faktisk ingen grund til at formode, at der forekom en sådan indflydelse, hvis Kommissionen ikke kunne fremlægge solid dokumentation herfor, som tog hensyn til rækkefølgen af hændelserne.
Finally, the accusations that SEA’s board of directors was dependent on the Municipality of Milan, which had been reported in the media, dated from 2006, and proved nothing with regard to influence exercised by the Municipality over SEA before that year.
SEA mindede om, at Domstolen i Alfa Romeo-sagen og ENI-Lanerossi-sagen havde udtalt, at lige såvel som en privat aktionær med rimelighed kunne tænkes at tilføre den nødvendige kapital for at sikre videreførelsen af et selskab, som var i midlertidige vanskeligheder, men som var i stand til at blive rentabelt igen, eventuelt efter en omorganisering, så kunne et moderselskab meget vel beslutte at bære tabene for et af sine datterselskaber af andre grunde end for at opnå et afkast på sin investering på kort sigt.
There were in fact no grounds to suppose that any such influence existed, if the Commission could not produce solid evidence to that effect that took account of the sequence of events.
I ENI-Lanerossi-sagen anførte Domstolen, at en privat investor, der forfølger et mål om langsigtet rentabilitet (ikke kun finansielt), kunne finde det berettiget at overføre kapital til et tabsgivende datterselskab af grunde såsom sandsynlighed for, at der ville komme en indirekte materiel fordel ud af investeringen, udsigten til at afsætte datterselskabet på bedre vilkår eller ønsket om at beskytte koncernens image eller omlægge dens aktiviteter.
SEA recalled that in ALFA Romeo and ENI-Lanerossi the Court of Justice had held that just as a private shareholder might reasonably subscribe the capital necessary to secure the survival of a company which was experiencing temporary difficulties but was capable of becoming profitable again, possibly after a reorganisation, so might a parent company decide to bear the losses of one of its subsidiaries for reasons other than the pursuit of a short-term return on investment.
I det foreliggende tilfælde mente SEA, at kompensationen af SEA Handlings tab i en privat investors øjne gyldigt kunne begrundes ikke blot i eksistensen af en strategisk plan og et omstruktureringsprogram med gode indtjeningsudsigter på langt sigt, men også i andre hensyn end det rent finansielle afkast af investeringen, nemlig hensyn, som bunder i det særlige ansvar, som påhviler SEA som koncessionshaver, og i koncernens image, idet man må huske, at den interne kompensation på intet tidspunkt udløste en bestemt gæld eller finansiel byrde for koncernen, som faktisk genererede et betydeligt nettooverskud.
In ENI-Lanerossi, the Court indicated that in the eyes of a private investor pursuing an objective of long-term profitability (not merely financial), a transfer of capital to a loss-making subsidiary might be justified by considerations such as the likelihood of an indirect material profit from the investment, the prospect of disposing of the subsidiary on better terms, or the desire to protect the group’s image or to redirect its activities.
Yderligere anførte SEA, at dens investeringsbeslutninger ikke nødvendigvis var baseret på umiddelbare indtjeningshensyn, som kunne være en bevæggrund, eventuelt i spekulationsøjemed, hos en minoritetsaktionær uden bestemmende magt eller hos en kontrollerede aktionær, der udelukkende var drevet af ønsket om at sikre en maksimal indtægt på ground handling-ydelserne isoleret set, men snarere på langt bredere hensyn rettet mod målet om at maksimere SEA-koncernens overordnede langsigtede indtjening.
In the case in point, SEA considered that in the eyes of a private investor the compensation of SEA Handling’s losses might be validly justified not only by the presence of a strategic plan and restructuring programme with good long-term profit prospects, but also by considerations other than a mere financial return on investment, considerations that derived from the special responsibility incumbent upon SEA as airport manager and from its image, bearing in mind that at no time did the internal compensation impose any specific debt or financial burden on the group, which was in fact generating a significant net profit.
Baggrunden for foranstaltningerne
Additionally, SEA stated that its investment decisions were based not necessarily on considerations of immediate profit, such as might guide the decisions, possibly speculative, of a minority shareholder without powers of control, or of a controlling shareholder driven exclusively by a desire to secure maximum profit from ground handling support services seen in isolation, but rather on far broader considerations directed towards the objective of maximising the overall long-term profits of the SEA group.
SEA anførte, at Kommissionen ikke kunne undlade at tage hensyn til den lovgivningsmæssige sammenhæng, som kompensationen af tabene fandt sted i. Lovgivningen skabte et konkurrencepres, som SEA arbejdede under, og indebar de forpligtelser, som SEA var bundet af, og den havde indvirkning på SEA's forretningsmæssige beslutninger og de resultater, som koncernen opnåede som følge af disse beslutninger.
The context of the measures