natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission also preliminarily considered that the participation to the 2010 capital injection of two private tourist agencies (Kompas d.d. and Palma d.o.o.) alongside PDP was per se not sufficient to remove the Commission's doubts about a possible advantage for Adria [15].
Komisjon rõhutas ka asjaolu, et erainvestor oleks kaalunud riski, et varasemad kapitalisuurendamised kujutasid endast ebaseaduslikku riigiabi, ning oleks hinnanud komisjonipoolse sissenõudekorralduse riski mõju investeeringu kasumlikkusele.
In relation to measure 4, the Commission noted that the investment by Slovenia clearly entailed State resources and reiterated its preliminary conclusion that PDP's actions were imputable to the State.
Lõpuks märkis komisjon, et pangad võisid otsustada kapitalisüstis osaleda huvi tõttu, mida Sloveenia oli Adria vastu üles näidanud ammu enne kuupäeva, mil võeti vastu otsus 2011. aasta kapitalisuurendamise kohta.
The Commission also expressed doubts about NLB's participation to measure 4, which could be seen as imputable to the State in view of the fact that: (a) NLB was at the time majority-owned by the State; (b) the State had majority of votes in the Management Board and Supervisory Board of the bank; and (c) the behaviour of a State-controlled bank could be influenced by the public authorities.
Seoses 5. meetmega kordas komisjon oma esialgset seisukohta, et PDP tegevus oli riigiga seostatav ning meede hõlmas riigi vara.
When assessing whether measure 4 entailed an undue selective advantage to Adria, the Commission noted in the opening decision that the fact that the banks agreed to the debt-to-equity conversion only in the case that the State would inject cash into Adria, and in particular the different nature of the contributions of the State and PDP when compared to that of the banks (cash v conversion of debt), was sufficient to create reasonable doubts about whether the 2011 capital increase was pari passu.
Aerodrom Ljubljana suhtes jõudis komisjon samale esialgsele järeldusele, pidades silmas asjaolu, et ettevõtja enamusosalus kuulus juba AAT omandamise ajal riigile.
The Commission also noted that, contrary to the previous capital increases, the 2011 capital increase took place without a valuation report.
Komisjon pidas ebatõenäoliseks, et riik ei osalenud Ljubljana lennujaama haldaja Aerodrom Ljubljana tähtsates otsustes, võttes arvesse Aerodrom Ljubljana kui riigi peamise rahvusvahelise lennujaama strateegilist tähtsust.
As regards the claim of the Slovenian authorities that they had decided to participate in measure 4 on the basis of the restructuring plan dated September 2011, the Commission observed that the restructuring plan was in principle not sufficient to satisfy the private investor criteria since some of the restructuring plan's predictions appeared to be based on uncertain or unclear assumptions.
Kuna AAT aktsiate omandamise esimene etapp leidis aset kohe pärast 2010. aasta kapitalisuurendamist, oli komisjon seisukohal, et neid meetmeid ei tuleks hinnata eraldi, vaid need moodustavad osa suuremast Adria toetusoperatsioonist.
The Commission moreover highlighted that a private investor would have considered the risk that the previous capital increases constituted illegal State aid and would have assessed the impact of the risk of a possible recovery order by the Commission on the profitability of the investment.
Uurides aruannet, milles määrati kindlaks ATT aktsiate väärtus, märkis komisjon, et AATd (sel ajal oli see SVL) hinnati Adria hooldusüksuse osana ning AAT väärtuse hindamisel võeti arvesse sellest tulenevat sünergiat.
Finally, the Commission observed that the banks may have decided to participate in the capital injection because of the interest showed by Slovenia in Adria much before the date when the 2011 capital increase was decided.
Komisjon leidis siiski, et aruandes oleks tulnud hinnata SLV/AAT kui eraldiseisva üksuse väärtust, jättes kõrvale kontsernisisese sünergia, kuna 2010. aastaks oli AAT Adriast eraldunud ning see müüdi eraldi üksusena.
In relation to measure 5, the Commission reiterated its preliminary view that the actions of PDP were imputable to the State and that State resources were involved.
Lisaks tegi komisjonile muret suur ajavahemik hindamise ja AAT aktsiate müügi vahel.
Regarding Aerodrom Ljubljana, the Commission came to the same preliminary conclusion in view of the fact that it was majority State-owned already at the time of the acquisition of AAT.
Komisjon väljendas kahtlusi ka viie hinnatava meetme siseturuga kokkusobivuse suhtes, eriti seetõttu, et Sloveenia ametiasutused ei esitanud kokkusobivuse ühtki võimalikku põhjendust.
The Commission also considered it unlikely that the public authorities were not involved in important decisions taken by Aerodrom Ljubljana, the manager of Ljubljana's airport, due to the latter's strategic importance for the country as the main gate for international flights.
Võttes arvesse asjaomaste meetmete laadi ja asjaolu, et meetmete rakendamise ajal võis Adriat pidada raskustes olevaks ettevõtjaks, märkis komisjon, et meetmete kokkusobivust saab hinnata üksnes ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c alusel ning lähtudes eelkõige ühenduse suunistest raskustes olevate äriühingute päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antava riigiabi kohta [16] (edaspidi „päästmise ja restruktureerimise suunised”).
Given that the first stage of the acquisition of shares of AAT took place immediately after the 2010 capital increase, the Commission was of the view that both measures should not be assessed in isolation but as part of a larger operation aimed at supporting Adria.
Esiteks märkis komisjon, et päästmise ja restruktureerimise suuniste punktis 3.1 sätestatud päästmisabi tingimused ei tundunud olevat täidetud.
When examining the report fixing the value of ATT's shares, the Commission noted that it valued AAT as being part of Adria's maintenance unit (it was at the time SVL) and that it took into account the synergies derived from this when assessing the value of AAT.
Seoses suuniste punktis 3.2 määratletud restruktureerimisabiga toonitas komisjon, et meetmeid rakendati enne komisjoni teavitamist ning et puudus suunistega ette nähtud tingimustele vastav usaldusväärne restruktureerimiskava – juba ainuüksi sellest asjaolust piisaks, et välistada meetmete kokkusobivus siseturuga [17].
However, the Commission considered that the report should have assessed the value of SLV/AAT as a stand-alone entity discarding intra-group synergies, since AAT was spun-off from Adria in 2010 and sold as a separate entity.
Komisjon avaldas kahtlusi ka restruktureerimiskava kohta, mis ei tundunud piisavalt usaldusväärne Adria püsiva elujõulisuse taastamiseks, kuna mõned prognoosid põhinesid kvantifitseerimata, ebakindlatel või ebaselgetel eeldustel.
In addition, the Commission also expressed concerns about the considerable gap between the time of the valuation and the time of the sale of the shares of AAT.
Komisjon kahtles ka selles, kas restruktureerimiskavaga ette nähtud kompensatsioonimeetmeid saab pidada asjakohasteks ja/või piisavateks, võttes arvesse, et need tundusid olevat Adria elujõulisuse taastamiseks vajalikud.
The Commission also expressed doubts on the compatibility with the internal market of the five measures under assessment, in particular since the Slovenian authorities did not provide any possible grounds for compatibility.
AAT müük leidis aset mitu kuud enne restruktureerimiskava heakskiitmist, 2010. aasta lõpus ja 2011. aasta alguses – ajal, mil Adria ilmselt vajas hädasti rahastamist.
In view of the nature of the measures at issue and of the fact that Adria could be considered a firm in difficulty at the time of the granting of the measures, the Commission noted that the compatibility of the measures could only be assessed under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, and in particular in the light of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [16] (‘the R&R Guidelines’).
Regulaarliinide sulgemist ei saanud pidada aktsepteeritavaks kompensatsioonimeetmeks, kuna enamik regulaarliine (31st 27) olid restruktureerimiskavas esitatud andmete kohaselt kahjumlikud ning nende sulgemist oleks ettevõtja elujõulisuse tagamiseks nii või teisiti nõutud.
The Commission first noted that the conditions for rescue aid laid down in Section 3.1 of the R&R Guidelines did not seem to be met.
Komisjon kahtles ka selles, kas Adria enda pakutud omaosalust […] eurot saab täielikult aktsepteerida, kuna ei olnud selge, kas AAT müügist ja pangalaenude omakapitali vastu muutmisest saadavaid summasid võib omaosaluse hulka lugeda.
In relation to restructuring aid as defined in Section 3.2 of the R&R Guidelines, the Commission highlighted that the measures identified had been granted before notification to the Commission and in the absence of a credible restructuring plan satisfying the conditions laid down in the R&R Guidelines, a circumstance that in itself would be sufficient to exclude compatibility of the measures with the internal market [17].
Arvestades, et Adria tundus olevat meetmete rakendamise ajal raskustes ja raskustes olevad ettevõtjad saavad vastu võtta ainult päästmis- ja/või restruktureerimisabi, tõstatas komisjon ka küsimuse, kas järgitakse ühekordse abi põhimõtet, eriti seoses 2011. aasta kapitalisuurendamisega.
The Commission also expressed doubts on the restructuring plan, since it appeared not to be sufficiently solid to restore the long-term viability of Adria, as some of its predictions are based on non-quantified, uncertain or unclear assumptions.
MÄRKUSED MENETLUSE ALGATAMISE OTSUSE KOHTA
The Commission also considered doubtful whether the compensatory measures foreseen in the restructuring plan could be considered appropriate and/or sufficient, given that they appeared to be necessary to restore the viability of Adria.
Sloveenia märkused
Regarding the sale of AAT, it took place several months before the restructuring plan was approved, at a time — end of 2010, beginning of 2011 — when Adria apparently was in dire need of financing.
Oma märkustes komisjoni menetluse algatamise otsuse kohta väidab Sloveenia, et 1., 2. ja 3. meede ei hõlmanud riigiabi, kuna KADi ja PDP otsuseid ei saa riigiga seostada.
Also, the cancellation of scheduled routes did not appear to be acceptable as compensatory measures given that most of these routes (27 out of 31) were reported in the restructuring plan to be loss-making and their termination would in any case be required to ensure viability of the company.
Eelkõige märkis Sloveenia, et riigi 100 % osalusest ei piisa järeldamaks, et meetmeid saab seostada riigiga.
The Commission also had doubts on whether the proposed own contribution from Adria of EUR […] could be fully accepted, in particular, since it is unclear whether the amounts from the sale of AAT and the debt-to-equity conversion of bank loans could be counted as own contribution.
Lisaks märgib Sloveenia, et hindamisaruanded, milles määrati kindlaks aktsiate väärtus, olid korrektsed, ning sellest lähtuvalt järgiti turumajandusliku investeerimise põhimõtet, mis välistab Adriale eelise andmise.
Given that Adria seemed to be in difficulty at the time the measures were granted and that firms in difficulty can only receive rescue and/or restructuring aid, the Commission also raised doubts on whether the ‘one time, last time’ principle would be respected, notably as regards the 2011 capital increase.
Eelkõige seoses 3. meetmega väidab Sloveenia, et asjaolu, et lisaks PDP-le märkisid 20 % aktsiatest samaväärsetel tingimustel kaks eraomandis olevat turismiettevõtjat, on oluline ning näitab, et turg ei kahelnud Adria elujõulisuses, mis välistab riigiabi olemasolu.
COMMENTS ON THE OPENING DECISION
Seoses 5. meetmega kordab Sloveenia, et PDP tegevust ei saa riigiga seostada.
Comments from Slovenia
Seoses Aerodrom Ljubljana tegevusega leiab Sloveenia, et asjaolust, et teatavad nõukogu liikmed nimetasid ametisse riik, KAD ja SOD, ei saa järeldada, et riik mõjutas AAT ostmise otsust.
In its comments on the Commission's opening decision, Slovenia maintains that measures 1, 2 and 3 did not entail State aid because the decisions of KAD and PDP cannot be deemed imputable to the State.
Peale selle leiab Sloveenia, et 2010. aasta aprilli hindamisaruannet, milles määrati AAT kui Adria hooldusüksuse väärtuseks 14,4 miljonit kuni 14,9 miljonit eurot, ei saa pidada aegunuks ning et miski ei näita seda, et hindamisaruandes võeti arvesse Adria-sisest sünergiat.
In particular, Slovenia noted that a 100 % shareholding of the State is not sufficient to conclude that the measures are imputable to the State.
Lisaks väidab Sloveenia, et nii PDP kui ka Aerodrom Ljubljana nõukogu koosolekuprotokollid näitavad, et ATT omandamise otsuse tegemisel lähtuti majanduslikest kaalutlustest.
Slovenia moreover notes that the valuation reports determining the value of the shares were appropriate and that on that basis the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) was met, thereby excluding an advantage to Adria.
Eespool kirjeldatud põhjustel tuleks 5. meetme puhul riigiabi olemasolu välistada.
Concerning in particular measure 3, Slovenia argues that the pari passu subscription of 20 % of the shares by two private tourist agencies alongside PDP was significant and showed that the market did not doubt about Adria's viability, which would exclude the presence of State aid.
Sloveenia vaidlustab ka Adria liigitamise raskustes olevaks ettevõtjaks ja leiab, et Adriat saab pidada raskustes olevaks alates 2011. aasta jaanuarist, st 4. meetme rakendamise ajal.
In relation to measure 5, Slovenia reiterates that the actions of PDP cannot be deemed imputable to the State.
Seoses 4. meetmega välistab Sloveenia riigiabi olemasolu väitega, et võla vahetamist omakapitali vastu NLB poolt ei saa seostada riigiga.
As regards Aerodrom Ljubljana's actions, Slovenia considers that the State influence on its decision to purchase AAT cannot be inferred from the fact that certain members of the Supervisory Board were proposed by the State, KAD and SOD.
Peale selle on Sloveenia arvamusel, et omakapitaliks konverteeritud laenud olid täielikult tagatud õhusõidukitele ja hoonetele seatud pantidega ning laene omakapitali vastu vahetades võtsid pangad seega uue äririski.
Slovenia furthermore considers that the valuation report dated April 2010,which had set the value of AAT as Adria's maintenance unit at a range between EUR 14,4 million and EUR 14,9 million, cannot be deemed outdated and that there is no indication that the valuation report took into consideration the synergies with Adria.
Selles mõttes oleks võla vahetamine omakapitali vastu võrdväärne rahasüstiga.
In addition, Slovenia claims that the minutes of the boards of both PDP and Aerodrom Ljubljana demonstrate that the decision to acquire ATT was taken on the basis of economically-rational considerations.
Sloveenia märgib veel, et pangad ja riik mõjutasid üksteist investeerimisotsuse tegemisel ning et Sloveenia arvates põhines otsus usaldusväärsel restruktureerimiskaval, ja järeldab, et investeerimisotsused tehti samaaegselt, mis välistab põhjendamatu eelise andmise Adriale.
For these reasons, the presence of State aid in measure 5 would be excluded.
Kuna Sloveenia leiab, et 1., 2., 3. ja 5. meede ei hõlmanud riigi vahendeid, ei esitanud ta nende meetmete kohta kokkusobivuse põhjendusi.
Slovenia also contests the qualification of Adria as a firm in difficulty and considers that Adria would be in difficulty only as of January 2011, i.e. at the time of measure 4.
Sloveenia esitas kokkusobivuse põhjendused siiski 4. meetme kohta juhuks, kui komisjon jõuab järeldusele, et see kujutab endast riigiabi.
Concerning measure 4, Slovenia excludes the presence of aid arguing that the debt-to-equity swap of NLB is not imputable to the State.
Kuna Sloveenia väitel oli Adria raskustes alles alates 2011. aasta jaanuarist (vt põhjendus 48), kujutab 4. meede endast päästmise ja restruktureerimise suuniste punktis 3.2 sätestatud, siseturuga kokkusobivat restruktureerimisabi, mida antakse esitatud restruktureerimiskava alusel.
Moreover, Slovenia is of the opinion that the outstanding loans converted into equity were fully collateralised with pledges on aircraft and buildings and that, by converting them into equity, the banks assumed new business risk.
Seoses elujõulisuse taastamisega leiab Sloveenia, et restruktureerimiskava tagab Adria pikaajalise elujõulisuse, ning toonitab, et kooskõlas päästmise ja restruktureerimise suunistega sisaldab restruktureerimiskava turu-uuringut ja äriühingu raskuste tekkimise põhjuste analüüsi, ning et sellega nähakse ette selliste tegevuste lõpetamine, mis jääksid ka pärast restruktureerimist kahjumlikuks.
In this sense, the debt-to-equity conversion would be equivalent to a cash injection.
Nagu näidatud põhjenduses 31, tegi Sloveenia restruktureerimiskavas mitu täiendust.
Slovenia also notes that the banks and the State influenced each other in order to take the investment decision, which — in Slovenia's view — was based on a reliable restructuring plan, and concludes that the investment decisions were concomitant, thereby excluding any undue advantage to Adria.
Praegusel kujul näeb kava ette, et restruktureerimine kestab 2015. aastani, samuti hõlmab see mitut täiendavat restruktureerimismeedet, et tagada püsivam elujõulisus.
Since Slovenia considers that measures 1, 2, 3 and 5 did not entail State resources, it did not advance any compatibility grounds for these measures.
Sloveenia rõhutab veel, et täiendatud restruktureerimiskava tagab 2015. aasta lõpuks isegi kõige negatiivsema stsenaariumi korral püsiva elujõulisuse – 2014. aastal on omakapitali investeeringute tulusus […] % ja 2015. aastal […] %, mis on kõrgem kui määr, mida komisjon aktsepteeris otsuses Air Malta kohta [18].
However, it advanced compatibility grounds for measure 4 in case the Commission would conclude it amounts to State aid.
Sloveenia on arvamusel, et tegevusmahu vähendamine (regulaarlendude sulgemise teel) […] % võrra talvehooajal ja […] % suvehooajal, teenindusaegade vabastamine teatavates lennujaamades, sh koordineeritud (tiheda liiklusega) lennujaamades, ja AAT müük on asjakohased ja proportsionaalsed kompensatsioonimeetmed.
Since, according to Slovenia, Adria would be in difficulty only as of January 2011 (see recital 48), measure 4 would constitute compatible restructuring aid under Section 3.2 of the R&R Guidelines on the basis of the submitted restructuring plan.
Sloveenia väidab ka, et suletud liinid olid tegelikult kasumlikud nn brutomarginaali (marginaali C1-osa positiivne) alusel, mida komisjon on aktsepteerinud Air Malta ja Czech Airlinesi [19] juhtumite puhul.
As regards return to viability, Slovenia considers that the restructuring plan ensures the long-term viability of Adria and highlights that, in accordance with the R&R Guidelines, the restructuring plan includes a market survey and an analysis of the causes that led to the company's difficulties, and that it foresees the abandonment of activities which would remain structurally loss-making after restructuring.
Seoses abi minimaalsuse põhimõttega (omaosalus) väidab Sloveenia eespool kirjeldatust tulenevalt, et AAT müük ei hõlma riigiabi ning seetõttu tuleks 14,7 miljoni euroni ulatuvat müügitulu omaosalusena aktsepteerida.
As indicated in recital 31, Slovenia submitted a number of updates to the restructuring plan, which currently foresees duration of the restructuring until 2015 and includes several additional restructuring measures in order to ensure a more sustainable viability.
Sloveenia leiab veel, et pankade poolt omakapitali vastu vahetatud võlg tuleks lugeda kogu summa, st 19,7 miljonit eurot, ulatuses omaosaluse hulka.
Slovenia also highlights that the updated restructuring plan ensures the long-term viability of the company by end of 2015 even in the worst-case scenario with a return on equity (ROE) of […] % in 2014 and of […] % in 2015, higher than the levels accepted by the Commission in the Air Malta decision [18].
Sloveenia on esitanud ka kõnealuste laenude tagatiseks olnud õhusõidukite väärtuse koos asjaomase AVACi aruandega, [20] kus on näidatud nende õhusõidukite väärtused.
Slovenia is of the view that the capacity reduction (in the form of cancellation of scheduled services) of […] % and […] % in winter and summer seasons, the release of slots at certain airports, including coordinated (congested) airports, and the sale of AAT are appropriate and proportionate compensatory measures.
Kui lisada sellele veel mitme vara […] müük, ületaks omaosalus täiendatud restruktureerimiskava kohaselt [50–54] %.
Slovenia also claims that the routes cancelled were actually profitable on the basis of the so-called ‘gross margin’ (positive C1 contribution) which the Commission had accepted in the Air Malta and Czech Airlines [19] cases.
Seoses ühekordse abi põhimõttega on Sloveenia seisukohal, et sellest põhimõttest on kinni peetud, kuna 1., 2., 3. ja 5. meetmega, mis eelnesid 4. meetmele, ei antud Adriale riigiabi.
In relation to aid limited to the minimum (own contribution), in line with what has been explained above, Slovenia claims that the sale of AAT is free of aid and therefore its proceeds, amounting to EUR 14,7 million, should be accepted as own contribution.
Huvitatud isikute märkused
Slovenia also considers that the debt-to-equity swaps of the banks should count as own contribution for their entire amount, i.e. EUR 19,7 million.
Ametliku uurimismenetluse jooksul sai komisjon märkusi ainult Ryanairilt, kes toetab komisjoni esialgseid järeldusi, et hindamisel olevad meetmed hõlmasid riigiabi ja ei ole kokkusobivad siseturuga.
Slovenia has also submitted the values of the aircraft pledged for the loans in question, together with the relevant AVAC report [20] demonstrating the values of those aircraft.
Ryanair väitis siiski, et komisjon ei arvestanud menetluse algatamise otsuses turumajandusliku investeerimise põhimõttele antud hinnangus kõiki tegureid: komisjon oleks pidanud arvesse võtma ka seda, kas erainvestor võinuks ettevõttesse lisakapitali paigutamise asemel valida Adria likvideerimise [21].
Adding to this the sale of a number of assets […] the amount of own contribution would exceed [50-54] % on the basis of the updated restructuring plan.
Ryanair väidab, et komisjon oleks menetluse algatamise otsustes pidanud hindama, kas Adria likvideerimine oleks olnud riigi jaoks tulusam kui lisavahendite andmine.
Finally, as regards the ‘one time, last time’ principle, Slovenia is of the view that it was respected since measures 1, 2, 3 and 5 — which predated measure 4 — did not entail State aid to Adria.
Ehkki Ryanair leidis, et tal ei ole piisavalt teavet restruktureerimiskava kommenteerimiseks, väljendas ta siiski kahtlusi selles suhtes, kas Adria jõuab uuesti kasumisse.
Comments from interested parties
Ryanair väitis veel, et mis tahes abi Adriale kahjustaks Ryanairi turuseisundit, kuna see õõnestab Ryanairi tegevust turu väljakujundamisel ning tähendab Ryanairi jaoks tulu kaotust.
During the formal investigation procedure, the Commission only received comments from Ryanair, who supports the Commission's preliminary findings that the measures under assessment entailed aid and were incompatible with the internal market.
Sloveenia märkused huvitatud kolmandate isikute märkuste kohta
Ryanair however argued that the Commission's assessment of the MEIP was not complete in the opening decision, since the Commission should have considered whether a private investor would have opted for liquidating Adria upfront instead of providing it with additional capital.
Sloveenia käsitles üksikasjalikult Ryanairi väiteid.
Ryanair argues that the Commission should have assessed in its opening decisions whether the liquidation of Adria was more profitable for the State than the provision of additional funds.
Eelkõige märkis Sloveenia, et Adriale antud kapitalisüstides osales mitte ainult riik, vaid ka erainvestorid ning üksused, kelle tegevust Sloveenia sõnul ei saa riigiga seostada.