natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Beslutningen om at deltage i den nye RCF var baseret på en grundig analyse af udsigterne til indtjening som følge af et stærkt og konkurrencedygtigt SAS i fremtiden.
It also stresses that the expectation of a successful implementation of the plan when deciding to participate in the new RCF was supported by the fact that the conclusion of new union agreements was a condition precedent for the new RCF.
Endelig deler FAM Norges synspunkt om, at udlånsbankernes beslutning om at deltage i den nye RCF hvilede på et forretningsmæssigt grundlag, eftersom deres eksisterende eksponering under den gamle RCF var rent teoretisk.
Furthermore, according to Norway, the developments between December 2012 and the cancellation of the new RCF on 4 March 2014 showed that the plan was on track to deliver the expected results [26].
FAM hævder, at bankerne endog havde mindre incitament til at deltage i den nye RCF end staterne og KAW, eftersom sidstnævnte kunne regne med en stigning i aktieprisen.
In relation to the terms and conditions of the new RCF, Norway argues that these were in conformity with normal market conditions, as they were similar to those of comparable deals and the new RCF also had higher upfront fees and more stringent conditions for drawdown than most deals analysed.
FAM fastholder derfor, at betingelserne i pari passu-testen må anses for at være opfyldt.
As far as the security package was concerned, Norway states that the actual financial risks of the lending banks were negligible because the securities had an estimated value that clearly exceeded the size of Facility A. As a result, in a liquidation scenario all of the lending banks' claims would be satisfied by the security package, or by other SAS assets that could be sold, such as […], its shareholding in […], etc.
VURDERING
The above is also supported by the actual cancellation of a significant part of the commitments under Facility A during the first half of 2013.
EKSISTENSEN AF STATSSTØTTE
According to Norway, this shows that the banks acted commercially and prudently when deciding to participate with the States and KAW in the new RCF.
EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, har følgende ordlyd:
Finally, Norway reports that the participation in the new RCF has generated a significant return for the RCF lenders without SAS having to draw on the facility.
»Medmindre andet er bestemt i denne aftale, er støtte, som ydes af EF's medlemsstater, EFTA-lande eller ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.«
This should support the view that the States' participation in the new RCF together with KAW and the banks was fully compliant with the MEI principle.
Statsstøttebegrebet omfatter enhver begunstigelse, som finansieres direkte eller indirekte af statsmidler og ydes af staten selv eller af organer, der optræder på vegne af staten.
Comments by the SAS Group
For at udgøre statsstøtte skal en foranstaltning være finansieret af statsmidler og skal kunne tilregnes staten.
The SAS Group argues that the States participated in the new RCF in their capacity as shareholders, not as public authorities.
I princippet udgør statsmidler en medlemsstats og dets offentlige myndigheders midler i lighed med offentlige virksomheders midler, på hvilke de offentlige myndigheder direkte eller indirekte kan have en dominerende indflydelse.
From that perspective, participating in such an instrument was preferable to an equity contribution, given the significant revenue generation for the shareholders/lenders in terms of fees, as well as the prospective increase in the share value.
Det kan ikke bestrides, at den foreliggende foranstaltning indebar statsmidler, eftersom den blev finansieret af midler, der kom fra staternes budgetter, og at den kunne tilregnes staten.
As regards the pari passu test, the SAS Group states that this was fulfilled given that the banks had no exposure to SAS and, as a result, they should be treated as ‘outside’ investors.
Det skal navnlig bemærkes, at det norske Stortinget godkendte statens deltagelse i den nye RCF (betragtning 28 ovenfor).
In addition, the States' participation in the new RCF did not influence the banks' behaviour, as it was SAS and not the banks, which requested that the shareholders join the new RCF.
Den pågældende foranstaltning skal fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene og kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem de kontraherende parter.
Furthermore, the SAS Group maintains that the banks decided to participate in the new RCF on equal terms with the States and KAW based on the very positive results of the risk/revenue analysis.
I den forbindelse er Tilsynsmyndigheden af den opfattelse, at enhver potentiel økonomisk fordel, som SAS opnår ved hjælp af statsmidler, opfylder denne betingelse, da SAS er i konkurrence med andre luftfartsselskaber i Den Europæiske Union og EØS, navnlig efter ikrafttrædelsen af den tredje fase af liberaliseringen af lufttransporten ( »den tredje pakke«) den 1. januar 1993 [28].
The SAS Group further supports Norway's claim that the assumptions underlying the 4XNG plan were robust with very realistic forecasts as regards the three main drivers, namely market growth in ASK, GDP growth for 2015-17 and assumed inflation of 0 %.
Derudover konkurrerer flyrejser — for rejser over relativt korte afstande inden for EØS — med vej- og jernbanetransport, og derfor kan vej- og jernbanetransportselskaber også være påvirket.
Also, the risks associated with the implementation of the plan were closely scrutinised by all lending banks with a particular focus on RASK as a key indicator of the company's profitability.
Det eneste element i begrebet statsstøtte, der således skal undersøges nærmere, er, om foranstaltningen gav SAS en uretmæssig økonomisk fordel.
At the same time, the SAS Group argues that the security package was sufficiently assessed and that the risk of SAS defaulting on the implementation of the 4XNG plan was mitigated.
Eftersom den nye RCF blev annulleret fra og med 4. marts 2014, har Tilsynsmyndigheden set på, om den nye RCF gav SAS en særlig uretmæssig økonomisk fordel fra det tidspunkt, hvor den blev oprettet i 2012, og indtil den blev annulleret i 2014.
This is supported by the fact that the delivery of cost savings was a condition precedent to the lenders entering into the new RCF and that the conclusion of new collective agreements in November 2012 was key to the successful implementation of the plan.
ØKONOMISK FORDEL FOR SAS
The SAS Group further criticises the Authority for having failed to take into consideration the bankruptcy alternative and the fact that the States would have lost the value of their combined shareholding had the new RCF not been made available.
For at fastslå, om der blev givet statsstøtte til fordel for SAS i den i artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen omhandlede betydning, vil Tilsynsmyndigheden vurdere, om luftfartsselskabet opnåede en økonomisk fordel, som den ikke ville have opnået under sædvanlige markedsbetingelser.
In this context, the SAS Group stresses that the States participated in the new RCF in their capacity as core shareholders in SAS aiming to obtain an appropriate return on their investment.
For at undersøge dette spørgsmål benytter Tilsynsmyndigheden kriteriet om den markedsøkonomiske investor, ifølge hvilket der ikke foreligger statsstøtte, når en privat investor af en størrelse, der kan sammenlignes med de pågældende organer i den offentlige sektor, og som handler under normale konkurrencevilkår, under tilsvarende omstændigheder kunne blive foranlediget til at træffe den pågældende foranstaltning i forhold til støttemodtageren.
Finally, the SAS Group reports that the implementation of the 4XNG plan has achieved earnings before tax of SEK 3 billion, leading to a positive outcome for SAS for the period November 2012-July 2013.
Ud fra kriteriet om den markedsøkonomiske investor skal Tilsynsmyndigheden derfor vurdere, om en privat investor ville have truffet den pågældende foranstaltning på samme vilkår.
Comments by FAM
En hypotetisk privat investor handler som en fornuftig investor, der ønsker at maksimere sin fortjeneste uden dog at løbe en for stor risiko i forhold til afkastet [29].
According to FAM, the company responsible for the management of KAW's assets, the latter's decision to participate in the new RCF was taken irrespective of its interest in SEB and SEB's exposure to SAS.
I princippet udgør et kapitalindskud med offentlige midler ikke statsstøtte, hvis dette indskud sker sideløbende med et betydeligt indskud af kapital fra en privat investor på tilsvarende vilkår (pari passu) [30].
FAM argues that KAW neither had a majority shareholding in SEB, nor could it be said that it controls SEB.
Staternes, KAW's og bankernes deltagelse i den nye RCF på lige vilkår (pari passu)
FAM examined the 4XNG plan, the associated financial risks and the security package, and considered it to be in KAW's interest to participate in the new RCF.
Tilsynsmyndigheden bemærker, at de udlånsbanker, der gik med i den nye RCF, også deltog i den gamle RCF.
In this respect, it compared the prospect of protecting KAW's long-term investment in SAS and future possible returns on that investment, as well as the high fees which would be paid by SAS under the new RCF, against the winding up of SAS, which it did not consider to be an economically interesting option.
I den nye RCF øgede staterne deres eksponering mod SAS, hvorimod bankerne næsten halverede deres bidrag (fra 366 mio. EUR til omkring 200 mio. EUR) og således reducerede deres samlede eksponering mod SAS med omkring 50 % i forbindelse med RCF.
FAM also agrees with Norway and the SAS Group that all stakeholders participated in the new RCF on equal terms, without any form of subordination, disproportionate rights to securities, or otherwise asymmetrical terms.
I lyset heraf udtrykte Tilsynsmyndigheden i indledningsbeslutningen tvivl om, hvorvidt pari passu-argumentet kunne holde, da staterne og bankerne ikke syntes at befinde sig i en situation, der kunne sammenlignes.
The decision to participate in the new RCF was based on a thorough analysis of the prospects of profitability resulting from a strong and competitive SAS in the future.
Norge og SAS Group hævdede under den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, at udlånsbankerne ikke havde nogen eksponering under den gamle RCF, da de forhandlede om deres deltagelse i den nye RCF.
Finally, FAM shares Norway's view that the lending banks' decision to participate in the new RCF was based on commercial considerations, as their existing exposure under the old RCF was only theoretical.
Bankerne burde derfor have været betragtet som investorer udefra i en situation, der kunne sammenlignes med staterne og KAW.
It argues that the banks had even less incentive to participate in the new RCF than the States and KAW, as the latter could count on a share price increase.
Beløbene var fuldt ud tilbagebetalt i marts 2012, og ændringerne af den gamle RCF, der trådte i kraft i samme måned, gjorde det yderst vanskeligt for SAS at trække på faciliteten derefter [31].
PRESENCE OF STATE AID
SAS blev også afkrævet en kapitaltilførselsplan inden juni 2012, hvilket blev godkendt af bestyrelsen såvel som af staterne og KAW som hovedaktionærer.
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:
Denne plan blev først forkastet af bankerne.
‘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.’
Det var først i november 2012, at staterne efter nøje at have gennemgået den reviderede 4XNG-plan besluttede at deltage i den nye RCF, og bankerne fulgt efter.
The concept of State aid thus applies to any advantage granted directly or indirectly, financed out of state resources, by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it.
Resultatet var, at de norske myndigheder og SAS Group under den formelle undersøgelse krævede, at SAS ikke skulle kunne anmode om at trække på den gamle RCF.
To constitute State aid, a measure must stem from state resources and must be imputable to the State.
På baggrund af denne situation skulle bankerne træffe en beslutning om, hvorvidt den gamle RCF skulle videreføres indtil udløbet i juni 2013, eller om de ville deltage i den nye RCF på samme vilkår som staterne og KAW, til trods for at staterne og KAW som aktionærer havde større incitamenter til at deltage for at opnå en potentiel forøgelse af værdien af deres aktier efter gennemførelsen af 4XNG-planen.
In principle, state resources are the resources of a Member State and of its public authorities, as well as the resources of public undertakings on which the public authorities can exercise, directly or indirectly, a controlling influence.
Selv om Tilsynsmyndigheden anser det for sandsynligt, at bankerne — i hvert fald dem, der ikke havde andre usikrede bilaterale eksponeringer mod SAS — ikke var reelt eksponeret mod den gamle RCF i den periode, hvor de skulle træffe en beslutning om at deltage i den nye RCF, så er den også af den opfattelse, at der stadig var en risiko for, at SAS kunne have opfyldt trækningsbetingelserne, inden den nye RCF var på plads.
It cannot be disputed that the measure in question entailed state resources, since it was financed by resources coming from the States' budgets, and that it was imputable to the State.
Den kendsgerning, at dette ikke skete, og at den gamle RCF ikke blev udnyttet, efter at den var fuldt ud tilbagebetalt i marts 2012, er irrelevant i den henseende.
In particular, it may be noted that Norway's parliament approved the Government's participation in the new RCF (paragraph 28 above).
Det ser således ud til, at bankerne til en vis grad var eksponeret mod SAS under den gamle RCF, hvilket staterne (og KAW) ikke var.
The measure in question must distort or threaten to distort competition and be liable to affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Derfor kan Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke acceptere argumentet fra de norske myndigheder om, at bankerne deltog i den nye RCF som investorer udefra til trods for deres eksponering under den gamle RCF.
According to established case law, when the financial support granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared to other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, then there is at least a potential effect on trade between Member States and on competition [27].
Endvidere er Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke enig med Norge i, at den eksponering, som nogle af bankerne var udsat for i form af bilaterale faciliteter knyttet til den gamle RCF [32], ikke indebar finansielle risici for bankerne i den periode, hvor forhandlingerne om den nye RCF fandt sted, fordi der ikke kunne have været trukket på disse faciliteter, medmindre den gamle RCF var udnyttet fuldt ud.
In this regard, the Authority is of the view that any potential economic advantage granted to SAS through state resources would fulfil this condition.
Som tidligere nævnt var der en, om end lille, risiko for, at trækningsbetingelserne kunne være blevet opfyldt, selv om der var en meget lille sandsynlighed for, at SAS efter ændringerne i marts 2012 og de strenge betingelser, der blev indført, skulle trække på den gamle RCF.
SAS is in competition with other airlines in the European Union and the EEA, in particular since the third stage of air transport liberalisation (‘the third package’) entered into force on 1 January 1993 [28].
Desuden viser det sig, at nogle af bankerne var eksponeret på anden måde mod SAS.
In addition, for journeys of relatively shorter distances within the EEA, air travel is in competition with road and rail transport, and therefore road and rail carriers might also be affected.
For eksempel havde […] ud over at deltage i den gamle RCF (fra 30. september 2012) en usikret (og utrukket) bilateral eksponering mod SAS på [200-600] mio. SEK samt en usikret kreditkorteksponering på [500-900] mio. SEK.
The only criterion of the notion of State aid that is thus in question is whether the measure conferred a selective undue economic advantage on SAS.
Den kunne derfor have været ansvarlig for at dække alle omkostninger til godtgørelse af kunder, hvis SAS havde været nødt til at aflyse forbindelsesflyene.
In the light of the cancellation of the new RCF as from 4 March 2014, the Authority has assessed whether or not the new RCF conferred a selective undue economic advantage on SAS from the time of its establishment in 2012 until its cancellation in 2014.
Den usikrede kreditkorteksponering udgjorde [0-2 %] af […] samlede kreditportefølje på omkring [1000-3000] mia. SEK, men den udgjorde dog en finansiel risiko, og det kan derfor ikke godkendes, at […] var i en situation, der kunne sammenlignes med staterne, da den besluttede at deltage i den nye RCF.
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE IN FAVOUR OF SAS
Desuden havde tre andre banker en eksponering i form af udestående flyfinansieringsfaciliteter (f.eks. […]).
In order to determine whether or not State aid was granted in favour of SAS within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the Authority will assess whether the airline received an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Selv om staterne hævder, at finansieringerne var sikret med flyene og ikke udgjorde en finansiel risiko for bankerne, fordi de let kunne sælges på markedet, så er der ikke noget bevis herfor i praksis.
To examine this question the Authority applies the MEI test, according to which no State aid would be involved where, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a comparable size to the relevant bodies in the public sector, and operating in normal market conditions in a market economy, could have been prompted to provide the measure in question to the beneficiary.
Det er fortsat uklart, om det fulde beløb i tilfælde af brandudsalg af flyene rent faktisk ville være blevet dækket.
According to the MEI test, the Authority therefore has to assess whether a private investor would have entered into the transaction under assessment on the same terms.
I indledningsbeslutningen stillede Tilsynsmyndigheden også spørgsmål ved, om bankernes adfærd kunne være påvirket af staternes adfærd i lyset af staternes vedvarende finansielle støtte til luftfartsselskabet gennem de seneste år (f.eks. i forbindelse med fortegningsretsemissionerne i 2009 og 2010).
The attitude of the hypothetical private investor is that of a prudent investor whose goal of profit maximisation is tempered with caution about the level of risk acceptable for a given rate of return [29].
Desuden var bankerne kun villige til at deltage i den nye RCF, hvis staterne deltog som anført i betragtning 21 og 22 ovenfor.
In principle, a contribution from public funds does not involve State aid if it takes place at the same time as a significant capital contribution by a private investor made in comparable circumstances and on comparable terms (pari passu) [30].
I princippet mener Tilsynsmyndigheden, at pari passu-betingelsen ikke kan gælde i de tilfælde, hvor staternes deltagelse var et ufravigeligt krav fra de private aktørers side og en forudsætning for deres deltagelse i transaktionen.
Pari passu participation of the States, KAW and the banks in the new RCF
Under den formelle undersøgelse hævdede Norge og SAS Group, at bankerne ikke på noget tidspunkt under forhandlingerne om den nye RCF følte sig påvirket af staternes tidligere adfærd og deres fortsatte vilje til at støtte SAS, til trods for at staternes indtægtsprognoser for fortegningsretsemissionerne i 2009 og 2010 ikke blev nået.
The Authority notes that the lending banks involved in the new RCF also participated in the old RCF.
Tilsynsmyndigheden kan ikke udelukke muligheden af, at private aktører ikke ville have været villige til at investere i en virksomhed med sådanne resultater og uforudsigelige fremskrivninger uden staternes deltagelse.
In the new RCF, however, the States increased their exposure to SAS, whereas the banks roughly halved their contribution (from EUR 366 million to approximately EUR 200 million) and therefore reduced their overall existing RCF exposure to SAS by approximately 50 %.
Samtidig kan det heller ikke udelukkes, at staterne, som havde afvist at tilføre ny kapital og gå ind i en underordnet RCF, ikke længere var villige til at sætte ekstra midler ind i SAS.
In view of this, the Authority expressed doubts in the opening decision that the pari passu argument could be met as the States and the banks did not seem to be in comparable positions.
Uanset disse betragtninger så er Tilsynsmyndigheden fortsat ikke overbevist om, at staternes deltagelse i den nye RCF fandt sted på samme vilkår som udlånsbankernes deltagelse, eftersom staternes deltagelse betød, at bankerne reducerede deres samlede eksponering mod SAS med omkring 50 % i forbindelse med RCF, hvorimod staterne øgede deres eksponering mod SAS.
Norway and the SAS Group argued in the course of the formal investigative procedure that the lending banks did not have any exposure under the old RCF when negotiating their participation in the new RCF.
Med hensyn til om KAW's adfærd kan betragtes som et referencepunkt for vurderingen af en privat investors adfærd, så viste den formelle undersøgelse, at KAW's eksponering mod SAS gennem sin aktieandel i SEB var mindre, end hvad der var anført i indledningsbeslutningen.
The banks should therefore have been considered as ‘outside’ investors in a comparable position to the States and KAW.
I betragtning af at KAW kun er en mindretalsaktionær i SEB, og at SEB's eksponering mod SAS var begrænset, kan det hævdes, at KAW's deltagelse i den nye RCF var begrundet i udsigterne til investeringens rentabilitet.
The Authority notes that SAS had drawn completely on the old RCF in January 2012 (paragraph 18 above).
I forlængelse af ovenstående har den formelle undersøgelse ikke gjort det muligt for Tilsynsmyndigheden med sikkerhed at fastslå, at den pågældende transaktion fandt sted på lige vilkår.
Indeed, the amendments to the old RCF in March 2012 included, inter alia, a condition of full and immediate repayment of the amount drawn.
Uanset pari passu-vurderingen har Tilsynsmyndigheden også set på, om staternes deltagelse i den nye RCF kunne anses for at være rationel ud fra et aktionærsynspunkt, og om den ville opfylde kriteriet om den markedsøkonomiske investor, hvis der ses bort fra pari passu-argumentet.
The amounts were fully repaid in March 2012 and the amendments to the old RCF enacted in the same month made it extremely difficult for SAS to draw on the facility thereafter [31].
Vurdering af staternes deltagelse i den nye RCF på grundlag af kriteriet om den markedsøkonomiske investor
Also, SAS was required to provide a Recapitalisation Plan by June 2012, which had to be endorsed by the Board, as well as by the States and KAW as the main shareholders.
Spørgsmålet er, om en privat investor i samme position som staterne, dvs. som eksisterende aktionærer i SAS og under tilsvarende omstændigheder som staterne i 2012, ville have indgået den nye RCF på lignende vilkår og betingelser [33].
This plan was initially rejected by the banks.
De uafhængige analyser, som blev foretaget af eksterne finansielle rådgivere (nemlig Goldman Sachs International og CITI som rådgivere for staterne og […] som rådgiver for långiverne) inden indgåelsen af den nye RCF, er instruktive i den henseende.
It was not until November 2012 that the States, having carefully examined the revised 4XNG plan, decided to participate in the new RCF, followed by the banks.