natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In contrast to Olympic Airways, which had financed its operations exclusively from debt, it was intended that Olympic Airlines would use its own funds.
Vastupidiselt äriühingule Olympic Airways, mis oli rahastanud oma tegevust täielikult võlgadest, kavatseti Olympic Airlinesi puhul kasutada äriühingu enda rahalisi vahendeid.
Olympic Airlines began operations with little or no debt, and this was due in no small part to the choice of the items transferred to the new entity.
Tegevust alustades oli Olympic Airlinesi võlg pea olematu, mis oli suurel määral tingitud uude üksusesse üle viidud varade ja kohustuste valikust.
As regards liabilities, when it began operations the new company inherited no financial debt from the parent company, which was indebted at that stage to the tune of EUR 207 million.
Kohustuste osas ei võtnud Olympic Airlines tegevuse alustamisel üle mingeid emaettevõtja finantsvõlgu, mille suurus tol hetkel oli 207 miljonit eurot.
Under the relevant provisions of Greek bankruptcy law (Law 2190/1920), when a division, sector or department is hived off and absorbed by an operational company, the shares in the operational company remain with the original company.
Vastavalt Kreeka pankrotiseaduse (seadus 2190/1920) kohaldatavatele sätetele jäävad üksuse, sektori või osakonna eraldamise ning selle tegutseva äriühinguga liitmise korral kõnealuse äriühingu aktsiad algsele äriühingule.
What this means in this case is that the shares in Olympic Airlines ought to have remained in the ownership of Olympic Airways.
Antud juhtumi puhul tähendab see, et Olympic Airlinesi aktsiad oleksid pidanud jääma Olympic Airwaysi omandisse.
However, Article 27 of Law 3185/2003 stipulates that within the framework of the privatisation procedure all the shares deriving from the hive-off of the various divisions of Olympic Airways are to devolve to the Greek State.
Seaduse 3185/2003 artiklis 27 on aga sätestatud, et erastamismenetluse raames lähevad kõik Olympic Airwaysi eri üksuste eraldamisel tekkinud aktsiad üle Kreeka riigile.
Moreover, any monies resulting from the subsequent sale of these divisions will be used to discharge Olympic Airways’ debts and obligations.
Lisaks sellele kasutatakse kogu kõnealuste üksuste edasisest müügist saadud raha Olympic Airwaysi võlgade tasumiseks ja kohustuste täitmiseks.
Greece has indicated that by this procedure the financial assets are transferred to the State at a value that cannot be called into question, in so far as it is the product of an evaluation carried out by auditors.
Kreeka riik väitis, et antud menetlusega kantakse finantsvarad üle riigile ning nende väärtust ei saa vaidlustada, kuivõrd see on määratud audiitorite hinnangu põhjal.
Moreover, the Greek State considers that when they are sold by the State these assets will generate a price higher than they would have done if the shareholding had not been transferred to it.
Lisaks sellele leiab riik, et kui varasid müüb riik, saab nende eest suuremat hinda kui oleks võimalik saada juhul, kui osalust ei oleks talle üle kantud.
THE ‘ADVANCE’ OF EUR 130312450 TO OLYMPIC AIRWAYS
130312450 EURO SUURUNE ETTEMAKSE ÄRIÜHINGULE OLYMPIC AIRWAYS
By Ministerial Decree 2/71992/A0024 of 22 December 2003, enacted pursuant to Article 27 of Law 3185/2003, the Greek State opened a special account at the Bank of Greece entitled ‘Greek State — Denationalisation account of the Olympic Airways group’.
Vastavalt seaduse 3185/2003 artiklile 27 avas Kreeka riik ministri 22. detsembri 2003. aasta dekreediga 2/71992/A0024 Kreeka Pangas erikonto nimetusega „Kreeka riik – Olympic Airwaysi kontserni denatsionaliseerimiskonto”.
The account is to be credited with the proceeds of any sale, within the framework of the privatisation procedure, of companies within the Olympic Airways group whose shares have been transferred to the Greek State (the first being Olympic Airlines).
Kontole kantakse üle summad, mis saadakse nende erastamismenetluse käigus müüdavate Olympic Airwaysi kontserni äriühingute müügist (esimesena müüakse Olympic Airlines), mille aktsiad on üle kantud Kreeka riigile.
Nevertheless, to cover expenditure necessary pending the privatisation of the companies within the group, the account was credited by the State with a sum described as an ‘advance’(prokatavoli) or ‘prepayment’(propliromi).
Selleks et katta vajalikud kulutused enne kontserni äriühingute erastamist, kandis riik asjaomasele kontole summa, mida kirjeldati ettemaksena (prokatavoli või propliromi).
This advance is equal to the nominal share capital of Olympic Airlines (EUR 130312450).
Kõnealune ettemakse oli võrdne Olympic Airlinesi aktsiate nimiväärtusega (130312450 eurot).
Those parts of Olympic Airways’ liabilities which were not transferred to the new Olympic Airlines, and specifically the expenditure connected with the early retirement of certain staff, were to be financed out of the special account and from revenue generated by the supply of services to Olympic Airlines and to third parties.
Neid Olympic Airwaysi kohustusi, mida uuele üksusele Olympic Airlines üle ei kantud, täpsemalt mõnede töötajate enneaegse pensionile siirdumisega seotud kulutusi, kavatseti rahastada nii erikontolt kui ka Olympic Airlinesile ja kolmandatele isikutele osutatud teenuste eest saadud tulust.
SPATOSIMO AND PAYMENTS TO AIA
SPATOSIMO JA MAKSED ATEENA RAHVUSVAHELISELE LENNUJAAMALE
By letter of 19 January 2004 a complainant, Aegean Airlines, forwarded to the Commission a copy of a letter from the Greek Civil Aviation Authority to the Auditor-General of the State, which had also been sent to the Athens International Airport company AIA (ref. DII/A/28751/11626 of 22 July 2003).
19. jaanuari 2004. aasta kirjaga edastas kaebuse esitanud Aegean Airlines komisjonile koopia Kreeka tsiviillennundusameti kirjast (dokument DII/A/28751/11626/22.7.2003), mis oli adresseeritud riigikontrolörile ning saadetud äriühingule Ateena rahvusvaheline lennujaam.
It appeared from this letter that Olympic Airways owed the sum of EUR 26001473,33 in respect of the ‘tax for the modernisation and development of airports’, known as ‘spatosimo’, which was levied on passengers by air carriers and was to be forwarded by them to the State.
Kirjast selgus, et Olympic Airways võlgnes 26001473,33 euro suuruse summa seoses lennuettevõtjate kasseeritava ja riigile edastatava „lennujaamade kaasajastamise ja arendamise maksuga”, mida tuntakse ka nimetuse all spatosimo.
It also appeared that the Civil Aviation Authority was seeking payment of this EUR 26 million to it.
Samuti selgus kirjast, et Kreeka tsiviillennundusamet nõudis võlgnetava 26 miljoni euro suuruse summa tasumist.
It therefore appeared that Olympic Airways, the main user of Greek airports, did not pay spatosimo, thus obliging the State to find means to aid AIA, which was newly established and was dependant on spatosimo.
Seetõttu ilmnes, et Kreeka lennujaamade peamine kasutaja Olympic Airways ei tasunud spatosimo’t ning sundis seega riiki leidma vahendeid vastloodud ja spatosimo’st sõltuva Ateena rahvusvahelise lennujaama abistamiseks.
Although Olympic Airways was under an obligation to repay the sums it owed at some time in the future, the Commission suspected that in the meantime it was benefiting as a result of the forbearance of the State, which did not penalise it for late payment, but in fact set up mechanisms whereby the other Greek airports had to contribute in order to compensate for the losses occasioned by the late payment or non-payment by Olympic Airways of the money it owed in spatosimo.
Kuigi Olympic Airwaysil oli kohustus võlgu olevad summad edaspidi tasuda, kahtlustas komisjon, et vahepeal tekkis tal eelis tänu riigi sallivale suhtumisele, kes jättis äriühingu hilinenud maksete eest karistamata ning kehtestas mehhanismi, mille kohaselt teised Kreeka lennujaamad pidid aitama hüvitada Olympic Airwaysi spatosimo võla hilinenud maksmisest või maksmata jätmisest tingitud kahju.
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PROCEDURE
MENETLUSE AJAL LAEKUNUD MÄRKUSED
THE GREEK AUTHORITIES’ INITIAL COMMENTS
KREEKA AMETIASUTUSTE ESIALGSED MÄRKUSED
On 11 June 2004 Greece submitted its response to the initiation of the procedure.
11. juunil 2004 esitas Kreeka vastuse menetluse algatamisele.
It began by explaining that in its opinion the most appropriate solution for Olympic Airways was the privatisation of the various businesses and operations of the group.
See algas selgitusega, et Kreeka arvates oli Olympic Airwaysi puhul kõige asjakohasem lahendus kontserni mitmesuguste äriühingute ja tegevusalade erastamine.
The privatisation would take place as quickly as practicable and in full compliance with all applicable rules and requirements of Greek and EC law; the Commission would be kept fully informed of developments.
Erastamine oli kavas läbi viia võimalikult kiiresti ning täielikus kooskõlas Kreeka ja Euroopa ühenduse kohaldatavate eeskirjade ja nõuetega; komisjoni kavatseti toimuvatest arengutest täiel määral teavitada.
Greece explained that privatisation was the most economically advantageous solution for the authorities, as it would generate more money than could be expected if the company were to be liquidated.
Kreeka selgitas, et ametiasutuste jaoks on erastamine majanduslikult kõige eelistatum lahendus, kuna see tooks sisse rohkem raha kui oleks oodata äriühingu likvideerimise korral.
While acknowledging that the privatisation option would also have social and other non-economic benefits, the Greek authorities emphasised that the economic analysis was the only criterion for deciding on the most appropriate strategy.
Tunnistades, et erastamisega kaasneb ka sotsiaalne ning muu mittemajanduslik kasu, rõhutasid Kreeka ametiasutused siiski, et kõige sobivama strateegia kindlaksmääramise ainus kriteerium oli majandusanalüüs.
Greece referred to the progress that had already been made in the privatisation process, which had been communicated to the Commission in advance.
Kreeka viitas erastamisprotsessi käigus juba tehtud edusammudele, millest komisjoni oli eelnevalt teavitatud.
Greece confirmed that the flight operations of Olympic Airways and Olympic Aviation had been hived off into an existing company, Macedonian, along with a number of intangible assets, such as slots, rights under bilateral agreements, the brand name and logo, and Olympic Airways’ goodwill.
Kreeka kinnitas, et Olympic Airwaysi ja Olympic Aviationi lennundustegevuse eraldamisel oli olemasolevale äriühingule Macedonian Airlines üle läinud ka mitmesugune immateriaalne vara, nagu teenindusajad, kahepoolsetest kokkulepetest tulenevad õigused, kaubamärk ja logo ning Olympic Airwaysi firmaväärtus.
Macedonian had changed its name and had become Olympic Airlines.
Macedonian Airlines muutis oma nime ja tema uueks nimeks sai Olympic Airlines.
Ownership of Olympic Airlines’ shares (following a capital increase to accommodate the contribution in kind of the flight operations) had been transferred directly to the Greek State, thus taking Olympic Airlines out of the Olympic Airways group.
Olympic Airlinesi aktsiate omandiõigus läks (pärast kapitali suurendamist, et see vastaks lennundusega tegelevate üksuste mitterahalisele sissemaksele) üle otse Kreeka riigile, misläbi Olympic Airlines eraldati Olympic Airwaysi kontsernist.
The new company had been granted all necessary licences and had begun operations on 12 December 2003.
Uuele äriühingule eraldati kõik vajalikud load ja ta alustas tegevust 12. detsembril 2003.
The Greek authorities further explained that the strategic model for Olympic Airlines was the creation of a viable scheduled air carrier, operating with industry average labour costs, which would be able to take advantage of a number of factors including Olympic Airways’ strong brand image, Greece’s position as one of the world’s 15 favourite tourist destinations, and the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens.
Järgnevalt selgitasid Kreeka ametiasutused, et Olympic Airlinesi strateegiline mudel on luua elujõuline regulaarlende pakkuv lennuettevõtja, kelle tööjõukulud vastaksid tööstusharu keskmisele ning kes saaks enda heaks ära kasutada mitut tegurit, sealhulgas Olympic Airwaysi tugevat kaubamärki, Kreeka positsiooni ühena maailma 15 populaarseimast turismisihtpunktist ning 2004. aasta Ateena olümpiamänge.
New management had been appointed to Olympic Airlines and a thorough review of the business plan was under way.
Olympic Airlinesile oli määratud uus juhtkond ning käimas oli äriplaani põhjalik läbivaatamine.
Following Olympic Airlines’ commencement of operations Olympic Airways had ceased to be an EU licensed air carrier and had been renamed Olympic Airways Services.
Pärast Olympic Airlinesi tegevuse alustamist lõpetas Olympic Airways oma tegevuse ELi lennutegevusloaga lennundusettevõtjana ning selle uueks nimeks sai Olympic Airways Services.
Olympic Aviation had also ceased flight operations, with the exception of limited general aviation and helicopter services, which were expected to be transferred to the new company.
Olympic Aviation oli samuti lõpetanud lennundustegevuse, välja arvatud piiratud üldlennundus- ja helikopteriteenused, mis kavatseti üle viia uude äriühingusse.
With respect to the non-flight operations now regrouped within Olympic Airways Services (ground handling, maintenance and engineering and aviation training), Greece indicated that it intended to privatise these activities also.
Kreeka sõnul kavatseti erastada ka nüüdseks äriühingusse Olympic Airways Services koondunud lennundusväline tegevus (maapealne käitlus, hooldus, tehniline teenindus ja lennukoolitus).
This was provided for by Law 3185/2003.
See oli ette nähtud ka seadusega 3185/2003.
Any holdings in other companies, such as Olympic Catering and Galileo Hellas, were likewise to be sold.
Samuti kavatseti müüa osalused muudes äriühingutes, nagu Olympic Catering ja Galileo Hellas.
Olympic Airways also had interests in three fuel companies that operated at Athens International Airport, namely Athens Airport Pipeline, Olympic Fuel and Olympic IntoPlane, and it was anticipated that these shareholdings would be sold off in a timely and orderly manner.
Olympic Airwaysil oli osalus ka Ateena rahvusvahelises lennujaamas tegutsevas kolmes kütuseettevõtjas, milleks olid Athens Airport Pipeline Co, Olympic Fuel Co ja Olympic IntoPlane Co, ning ka need osalused kavatseti aegsalt ja nõuetekohaselt müüa.
The sale of these companies would be relatively easy, as they had ‘clean balance sheets’ and their private shareholders had the right of first refusal to buy them.
Nende äriühingute müümine pidi olema suhteliselt lihtne, kuna nende bilansid olid korras ning eraaktsionäridel oli ostueesõigus.
The Greek authorities wanted to clarify a number of issues relating to the restructuring that had been raised when the procedure was initiated.
Kreeka ametiasutused soovisid selgitada mitut menetluse algatamise käigus tõstatatud ümberkorraldamisega seotud küsimust.
With regard to the agreements between Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines, Greece asserted that all services were provided at market rates and were in accordance with Olympic Airways’ generally applicable commercial policy.
Seoses Olympic Airwaysi ja Olympic Airlinesi vaheliste kokkulepetega kinnitas Kreeka, et kõiki teenuseid osutatakse turuhinnaga ning need on kooskõlas Olympic Airwaysi üldise äripoliitikaga.
The Greek authorities undertook to transmit these agreements to the Commission.
Kreeka ametiasutused kohustusid edastama need kokkulepped ka komisjonile.
With regard to aircraft leases, Greece stressed that the only aircraft transferred to Olympic Airlines were those fully owned by Olympic Airways.
Seoses lennukite rendiga rõhutas Kreeka, et Olympic Airlinesile läksid üle üksnes täielikult äriühingule Olympic Airways kuulunud lennukid.
Aircraft leased by Olympic Airways were subleased to Olympic Airlines at market rates, because if the leases had been terminated early Olympic Airways would have had to compensate the lessors for their losses.
Olympic Airwaysi renditud lennukid anti Olympic Airlinesile turuhinnaga allrendile, kuna rendilepingu ennetähtaegse lõpetamise korral oleks Olympic Airways pidanud tasuma rendileandjate kantud kahjud.
The operating leases would be assigned directly to Olympic Airlines, thus taking Olympic Airways out of the lease.
Kasutusrendilepingud kavatseti sõlmida otse Olympic Airlinesi nimel ning jätta Olympic Airways rendilepingust välja.
The leases of four Airbus A340-300 aircraft partially covered by State guarantees (up to 45 % of the financing value) would not be assigned to the new company.
Osaliselt riigigarantiiga hõlmatud (45 % ulatuses rahastamisväärtusest) nelja Airbus A340-300 lennuki rent ei lähe üle uuele äriühingule.
Olympic Airlines would operate these aircraft on a sublease basis, paying market rates to Olympic Airways.
Olympic Airlines käitab neid lennukeid allrendi korras, makstes äriühingule Olympic Airways turuhinda.
In this way the Greek authorities contended that no State benefit would pass to Olympic Airlines.
Sel viisil ei kandu riigi toetus Kreeka ametiasutuste väitel üle Olympic Airlinesile.
On the State guarantees for these aircraft, it was the contention of Greece that although the 2002 Decision declared that restructuring aid granted to Olympic Airways in several forms (including State guarantees) was incompatible, the Commission had ordered the recovery only of the last tranche of the restructuring aid granted, equal to EUR 41 million (as well as the recovery of unauthorised new aid), on the grounds of legitimate expectation.
Seoses kõnealustele lennukitele antud riigigarantiidega väitis Kreeka, et kuigi 2002. aasta otsusega tunnistati äriühingule Olympic Airways mitmel viisil (sealhulgas riigigarantiidena) antud ümberkorraldamisabi ühisturuga kokkusobimatuks, nõudis komisjon õiguspärase ootuse alusel üksnes äriühingule Olympic Airways antud ümberkorraldamisabi viimase osamakse (41 miljonit eurot) tagasinõudmist (ning ühtlasi lubamatu uue abi tagasinõudmist).
Greece maintained that as the 2002 Decision did not provide specifically for the recovery (or cancellation) of State guarantees, it allowed their continuation.
Kreeka väidab, et kuna 2002. aasta otsuses ei olnud konkreetselt sätestatud riigigarantiide tagasivõtmist (või nende tühistamist), siis lubati sellega nende jätkumine.
The Greek authorities argued that the transfer of public service obligations was lawful, because the operation of these routes formed an integral part of the flight activities of Olympic Aviation, and the routes continued to be operated with the same aircraft and same personnel as the rest of the network.
Kreeka väitis, et avaliku teenindamise kohustuste üleminek toimus seaduspäraselt, kuna kõnealuste marsruutide teenindamine moodustas Olympic Aviationi lennundustegevuse lahutamatu osa ning marsruutide teenindamine jätkus samade lennukite ja samade töötajatega kui ülejäänud võrgustikus.
Regarding the alleged new aid to Olympic Airways, the Greek authorities expressed some confusion as to what was meant by ‘tax obligations’.
Äriühingule Olympic Airways antud väidetava uue abi puhul tekitas Kreeka ametiasutustele teatavat segadust see, mida peetakse silmas „maksukohustuste” all.
The Greek authorities said that the Commission had failed to show that the Greek authorities had ‘assisted’ Olympic Airways by tolerating the non-payment of certain obligations (not only tax obligations).
Kreeka ametiasutuste sõnul ei suutnud komisjon tõestada, et Kreeka ametiasutused abistasid Olympic Airwaysi, suhtudes sallivalt teatavate (mitte üksnes maksudega seotud) kohustuste täitmata jätmisse.
They argued that it was for the Commission to discharge the burden of proving such an allegation, which it had failed to do.
Kreeka ametiasutused väitsid, et sellise väite esitamisel lasub komisjonil ka tõendamiskohustus, mida viimane aga ei täitnud.
The Greek authorities reiterated that Olympic Airways was subject to the generally applicable Greek law and procedures applicable to all Greek companies in this regard.
Kreeka ametiasutused kinnitasid veelkord, et Olympic Airwaysi suhtes kehtisid samad üldkohaldatavad Kreeka õigusaktid ja menetlused, mis kõikide Kreeka äriühingute suhtes.
Concerning the alleged non-payment of the spatosimo tax, the Greek Government submitted that the relationship between the air carriers, who collected spatosimo, and the Civil Aviation Authority, to which they forwarded it, had to be distinguished from the relationship between the Authority and the airports in Greece (including AIA), which received funding from spatosimo calculated on the basis of the number of passengers flown.
Spatosimo väidetava maksmata jätmise kohta väitis Kreeka valitsus, et tuleb vahet teha spatosimo’t koguvate lennuettevõtjate ja Kreeka tsiviillennundusameti suhetel, kellele esimesed selle maksu edastavad, ning Kreeka tsiviillennundusameti ja lennureisijate arvu põhjal väljaarvutatud spatosimo’t saavate Kreeka lennujaamade (sh Ateena rahvusvaheline lennujaam) suhetel.
Air carriers collected spatosimo from passengers, and forwarded it to the State.
Lennuettevõtjat kogusid spatosimo't reisijatelt ja edastasid selle riigile.
Spatosimo levied but not paid to the State constituted a debt to the State and was subject to the general provision of the Code for the Collection of Debts owed to the State (KEDE).
Sel viisil sissenõutud, ent riigile edastamata jäetud spatosimo kujutas endast võlgnevust riigi ees ning selle suhtes kohaldati riigile võlgnetavate summade sissenõudmise juhendi (KEDE) üldsätteid.
This was what had happened in the case of the sum of EUR 26001473,33 referred to, which Olympic Airways had not paid on time but had paid off subsequently, in instalments, with all the default interest and penalties applicable.
See juhtuski osutatud 26001473,33 euro suuruse summa puhul, mille Olympic Airways jättis õigeaegselt maksmata, kuid mis tasuti hiljem osamaksetena koos kõigi kohaldatavate viiviste ja trahvidega.
The collection mechanism was separate from the disbursement mechanism whereby the Greek State (through the Civil Aviation Authority) paid money to the airports.
Kogumissüsteem oli lahutatud jagamissüsteemist, mille kaudu Kreeka riik (läbi Kreeka tsiviillennundusameti) maksis raha lennujaamadele.
Although the two mechanisms were intended to operate back-to-back, one financing the other, the obligation on the Greek State to pay the airports was not dependant on its ability to collect the sums due from the air carriers.
Kuigi need kaks süsteemi pidid toimima kompensatsiooni põhimõttel (ühest rahastatakse teist), ei sõltunud Kreeka riigi kohustus lennujaamadele makseid teha riigi suutlikkusest neid summasid lennuettevõtjatelt koguda.
As a result there had been situations where the State had been obliged to grant sums that had not yet been collected.
Selle tulemusel on esinenud olukordi, kus riik oli kohustatud maksma välja summasid, mida ta ei olnud veel kogunud.
While this was unsatisfactory for the State, it did not amount to State aid, as the air carriers were not released from their obligation to pay (with default interest and penalties).
Kuigi olukord oli riigi jaoks ebamugav, ei kujutanud see endast riigiabi, kuna lennuettevõtjaid ei vabastatud kohustusest maksta (sh viiviseid ja trahve).
In the particular case referred to when the procedure was initiated, cash flow constraints had obliged the Greek State to alter the percentages of spatosimo allocated to particular airports, granting more to AIA (which resulted in a short-term reduction in the payments due to other airports).
Menetluse algatamisel viidatud konkreetse juhtumi puhul oli Kreeka riik piiratud rahavoogude tõttu sunnitud muutma eri lennujaamadele jagatava spatosimo määrasid, eraldades suurema summa Ateena rahvusvahelisele lennujaamale (mille tulemusel teistele lennujaamadele võlgnetavad maksed lühiajaliselt vähenesid).
This was essential, as AIA’s financial situation was monitored by the European Investment Bank and commercial lenders; the step was irrelevant to the question whether Olympic Airways paid its dues.
See oli vajalik seetõttu, et Ateena rahvusvahelise lennujaama finantsolukorda jälgisid Euroopa Investeerimispank ja turul tegutsevad laenuandjad ning see ei olnud seotud asjaoluga, kas Olympic Airways maksis oma võlgu olevad summad.