natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, regarding the EUR 5 million claim attributed to airBaltic (measure 6), the Commission explained in its opening decision that by virtue of Article 7.4 of the Agreement, Latvia had decided that a claim of EUR 5 million towards airBaltic for syndicated loan 2 — the part granted by Taurus, of a total of EUR 35 million — was to be assigned to airBaltic for a price of LVL 1.
Naposljetku, u odnosu na potraživanje od 5 milijuna EUR ustupljeno društvu airBaltic (6. mjera), Komisija je u svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka objasnila da je Latvija, u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 4. Sporazuma, odlučila da će se potraživanje u iznosu od 5 milijuna EUR prema društvu airBaltic za sindicirani zajam br. 2, dio koji je odobrio Taurus, od ukupnog iznosa 35 milijuna EUR, ustupiti društvu airBaltic po cijeni od 1 LVL.
The Commission highlighted that in economic terms this operation was very similar to a debt waiver, by means of which Latvia was freeing airBaltic from its obligation to pay interests and to reimburse part of syndicated loan 2 to the bearer of the claim.
Komisija je istaknula da je u gospodarskom smislu ova operacija bila vrlo slična otpisivanju duga kojim je Latvija oslobodila društvo airBaltic obveze plaćanja kamata i vraćanja dijela sindiciranog zajma br. 2 nositelju potraživanja.
In addition, the Commission concluded that measure 6 was not MEIP-conform since airBaltic was not entitled under the Agreement to get the credit in exchange of LVL 1.
Osim toga, Komisija je zaključila da 6. mjera nije u skladu s MEIP-om jer airBaltic u skladu sa Sporazumom nema pravo dobiti kredit u zamjenu za 1 LVL.
In relation to the rest of the claims under syndicated loan 2 totalling LVL 30 million (EUR 42,47 million) (see recital 42 above), the Commission noted that the reasoning above would apply mutatis mutandis to these claims.
U vezi s ostalim potraživanjima u okviru sindiciranog zajma br. 2 u ukupnom iznosu od 30 milijuna EUR (42,47 milijuna EUR) (vidjeti prethodnu uvodnu izjavu 42.), Komisija je napomenula da bi se prethodno obrazloženje primjenjivalo na ta potraživanja na odgovarajući način.
The Commission therefore came to the preliminary conclusion that the six measures under assessment entailed unlawful state aid, since they had been granted in breach of the notification and stand-still obligations established in Article 108(3) TFEU.
Komisija je stoga došla do preliminarnog zaključka da šest mjera koje se ocjenjuju čine nezakonitu državnu potporu jer su odobrene uz kršenje obveze prijave i obveza o neprimjenjivanju mjera utvrđenih u članku 108. stavku 3. UFEU-a.
The Commission also expressed doubts on the compatibility with the internal market of the six measures under assessment, in particular since the Latvian authorities did not provide any possible grounds for compatibility.
Komisija je također izrazila sumnje u spojivost šest mjera koje se ocjenjuju s unutarnjim tržištem, posebno zato što latvijska nadležna tijela nisu predvidjela moguće osnove za spojivost.
Of the possible compatibility grounds, the Commission preliminarily considered — in view of the difficulties of airBaltic — that they only applicable criteria were those concerning aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU on the basis of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [23] (‘the R&R Guidelines’).
Od mogućih osnova za spojivost, Komisija je, s obzirom na poteškoće društva airBaltic, preliminarno smatrala da su jedini primjenjivi kriteriji oni koji se odnose na državnu potporu za sanaciju i restrukturiranje poduzeća u teškoćama u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 3. točkom (c) UFEU-a na temelju Smjernica Komisije o državnim potporama za sanaciju i restrukturiranje poduzeća u teškoćama [23] („Smjernice za sanaciju i restrukturiranje”).
In this respect, on the basis of the information available at the time, the Commission was of the view that the conditions for rescue aid did not seem to be met, and that the reShape plan did not include any of the necessary elements for it to be considered a restructuring plan in the sense of section 3.2 of the R&R Guidelines.
S obzirom na to, na temelju informacija dostupnih u to vrijeme, Komisija je smatrala da se čini da uvjeti za sanaciju nisu ispunjeni i da plan reShape nije uključivao niti jedan od nužnih elemenata da bi se mogao smatrati planom restrukturiranja u smislu odjeljka 3.2. Smjernica za sanaciju i restrukturiranje.
COMMENTS FROM LATVIA
PRIMJEDBE LATVIJE
Latvia argues that BAS was the initiator of the Agreement and actually asked the State to participate in the capital increase.
Latvija tvrdi da je BAS pokrenuo sklapanje Sporazuma i da je zapravo on tražio od države da sudjeluje u povećanju kapitala.
Eventually, the State agreed to the investment subject to strict conditions laid down in the Agreement.
Država je na kraju pristala na ulaganje podložno strogim uvjetima propisanima u Sporazumu.
One of the key elements of the Agreement was an injection by the State and BAS of around LVL 100 million (EUR 141,58 million) in two stages: (i) LVL 30 million (EUR 42,47 million) in the form of the first State loan and the BAS loan, and (ii) approximately LVL 70 million (EUR 99,1 million) to be provided by the State and BAS according to their shareholding.
Jedan od ključnih elemenata Sporazuma bila je injekcija države i BAS-a u iznosu od oko 100 milijuna LVL (141,58 milijuna EUR) u dvije faze: i. 30 milijuna LVL (42,47 milijuna EUR) u obliku prvog državnog zajma i zajma BAS-a, i ii. otprilike 70 milijuna LVL (99,1 milijun EUR) koje će osigurati država i BAS u skladu sa svojim udjelima.
Therefore, according to Latvia, BAS was under a contractual obligation to inject additional capital into airBaltic in proportion to its shareholding.
Stoga je, prema Latviji, BAS imao ugovornu obvezu uložiti dodatni kapital u airBaltic razmjerno svom vlasničkom udjelu.
Latvia derives this conclusion from Article 7.2 of the Agreement, which establishes that the State would provide a second loan to airBaltic ‘in proportion to its voting rights’, which in Latvia's view means that BAS had to inject money also in proportion to its shareholding.
Latvija svoj zaključak temelji na članku 7. stavku 2. Sporazuma u kojem je propisano da će država dati drugi zajam društvu airBaltic „razmjerno njezinim glasačkim pravima”, što prema mišljenju Latvije znači da je BAS morao uložiti iznos koji je razmjeran njegovom vlasničkom udjelu.
Latvia also notes that the Agreement provides for a number of contingency measures aimed at protecting the financial interests of the State in case BAS would fail not fulfil its obligations: (i) the right for the State to acquire the shares from BAS in exchange of LVL 1, (ii) the obligation for the private investors that granted syndicated loan 2 to airBaltic to attribute their claims against airBaltic to the State under certain circumstances, and (iii) the obligation for the investors to compensate airBaltic for certain off-balance sheets liabilities amounting to approximately EUR […] million [24].
Latvija također napominje da je u Sporazumu predviđen niz mjera za nepredviđene situacije u cilju zaštite financijskih interesa države u slučaju da BAS ne ispuni svoje obveze: i. pravo države da kupi dionice od BAS-a za 1 LVL, ii. obveza privatnih ulagača koji su društvu airBaltic odobrili sindicirani zajam br. 2, da svoja potraživanja prema društvu airBaltic u određenim okolnostima ustupe državi te iii. obveza ulagača da nadoknade društvu airBaltic određena dugovanja izvan bilance u iznosu od otprilike […] milijuna EUR [24].
The fact that BAS and the investors accepted these contingency measures is, in Latvia's opinion, proof that the investors were confident that BAS would fulfil its obligations.
Činjenica da su BAS i ulagači prihvatili te mjere za nepredviđene situacije, prema mišljenju Latvije, dokaz je da su ulagači bili sigurni da će BAS ispuniti svoje obveze.
On this basis, Latvia considers that measures 1, 2 and 3 were concomitant and MEIP-rational.
Na temelju toga Latvija smatra da su 1., 2. i 3. mjera povezane i racionalne prema MEIP-u.
In addition, since measure 6 was a corollary of the contingency measures, Latvia claims that this measure does not entail aid either.
Osim toga, budući da je 6. mjera bila nužna posljedica mjera za nepredviđene situacije, Latvija tvrdi da ni ta mjera ne predstavlja državnu potporu.
In addition, as regards measure 1, Latvia adds that the interest rate was in line with the MEIP and the Reference Rate Communication [25] and argues that the lowering of the interest rate from [11 — 13] % to [2 — 4] % was economically rational for the State in order to reduce the funding costs of airBaltic (which at time it already owned at 99,8 %).
Osim toga, u pogledu 1. mjere, Latvija dodaje da je kamata bila u skladu s MEIP-om i Komunikacijom o referentnoj kamatnoj stopi [25] i tvrdi da je smanjenje kamata s [11 – 13] % na [2 – 4] % bilo ekonomski razumno za državu u cilju smanjenja troškova financiranja društva airBaltic (u kojem je tada već imao udio od 99,8 %).
Concerning measure 2, Latvia is of the opinion that the interest rate was in line with the MEIP.
U pogledu 2. mjere, Latvija smatra da je kamata bila u skladu s MEIP-om.
Since this transaction was agreed by BAS and the State in full concomitance, Latvia excludes the presence of aid.
Budući da su tu transakciju istodobno dogovorili BAS i država, Latvija isključuje postojanje državne potpore.
In what relates to measure 6, Latvia adds that the attribution of the claims to airBaltic was a corollary of the measures foreseen in Article 7.4 of the Agreement.
U odnosu na 6. mjeru, Latvija dodaje da je ustupanje potraživanja društvu airBaltic bilo posljedica mjera predviđenih u članku 7. stavku 4.
According to Latvia, this ensures that the entire Agreement is pari passu, since the assignment of the claim to airBaltic guarantee that the private investors make a proportionate contribution to the financial injection into airBaltic.
Sporazuma. Prema Latviji, time se osigurava ravnopravnost cijelog Sporazuma jer se ustupanjem potraživanja društvu airBaltic jamči da će privatni ulagači dati doprinos razmjeran financijskoj injekciji u airBaltic.
Concerning measure 4, Latvia is of the opinion that the issuance of 0 %-coupon bonds was carried out concomitantly by the State and BAS under identical conditions and thereby excludes the presence of state aid.
U pogledu 4. mjere, Latvija smatra da su država i BAS istodobno izdali bezkuponske obveznice pod istim uvjetima i stoga isključuje postojanje državne potpore.
Latvia also explains that the decision to issue bonds was taken at the initiative of BAS.
Latvija također objašnjava da je odluka o izdavanju obveznica donesena na inicijativu BAS-a.
As regards the fact that these bonds offered no profit, Latvia claims that the Commission should take into account the so-called ‘owner effect’ and consider that the State, as shareholder of airBaltic, had different incentives than an outsider investor.
S obzirom na činjenicu da te obveznice ne donose dobit, Latvija tvrdi da bi Komisija trebala uzeti u obzir takozvani „učinak vlasnika” i smatra da je država, kao dioničar društva airBaltic, imala različite poticaje od vanjskog ulagača.
Finally, as regards measure 5, Latvia is of the opinion that no State resources were involved and that in any event the actions of the FCMC would not be imputable to the State.
Naposljetku, u pogledu 5. mjere, Latvija smatra da se nije radilo o državnim sredstvima i da se postupci FCMC-a u svakom slučaju ne mogu pripisati državi.
In view of its opinion that no state aid was present, Latvia did not initially provide arguments on the compatibility of the measures with the internal market.
S obzirom na njezino mišljenje da nije bilo državne potpore, Latvija nije izvorno dostavila argumente o spojivosti mjera s unutarnjim tržištem.
However, during the course of the formal investigation procedure, Latvia provided arguments in this respect and noted that if state aid was present, it would be compatible restructuring aid under the R&R Guidelines.
Međutim, za vrijeme formalnog istražnog postupka, Latvija je dostavila argumente u tom smislu i napomenula je da bi se, kada bi i državna potpora i postojala, radilo o državnoj potpori za restrukturiranje u skladu sa Smjernicama za sanaciju i restrukturiranje.
On this basis, Latvia submitted in December 2013 a restructuring plan according to which the restructuring of airBaltic started in April 2011, when a first version of the plan was submitted to the company's management.
Na temelju toga, Latvija je u prosincu 2013. dostavila plan restrukturiranja prema kojem je restrukturiranje društva airBaltic započelo u travnju 2011. kada je upravi društva dostavljena prva verzija plana.
The restructuring plan foresees a 5-year restructuring period from April 2011 to April 2016 and total restructuring costs of LVL [150 — 170] million (EUR [214 — 242] million).
U planu restrukturiranja predviđeno je petogodišnje razdoblje restrukturiranja od travnja 2011. do travnja 2016. i ukupni troškovi restrukturiranja u iznosu od [150 – 170] milijuna LVL ([214 – 242] milijuna EUR).
The restructuring plan foresees three types of restructuring measures: (i) optimisation of revenues and costs for the existing operations; (ii) network reconfiguration, resulting in adjustment of destinations, frequencies and timing; and (iii) network and fleet optimisation.
U planu restrukturiranja predviđene su tri vrste mjera restrukturiranja: i. optimizacija prihoda i troškova postojećih operacija, ii. rekonfiguracija mreža te posljedična prilagodba odredišta, učestalosti i vremena te iii. optimizacija mreže i flote.
The restructuring plan includes a total of 26 initiatives addressing revenue and costs, coupled with additional initiatives in the area of network reconfiguration and fleet renewal.
Plan restrukturiranja uključuje ukupno 26 inicijativa koje se odnose na prihode i troškove zajedno s dodatnim inicijativama u području rekonfiguracije mreže i obnove flote.
The plan also puts forward a number of compensatory measures: (i) fleet reduction by 27 %; (ii) the surrender of 14 profitable routes; and (iii) the surrender of […] slot pairs in coordinated airports.
U planu je također predviđen niz kompenzacijskih mjera: i. smanjenje flote 27 %, ii. predavanje 14 profitabilnih linija te iii. predavanje […] parova slotova u koordiniranim zračnim lukama.
Between 2011 and 2016, airBaltic will reduce its capacity by [17 — 20] % in terms of ASK [26] ([7 — 10] % when considering profitable routes only).
AirBaltic će od 2011. do 2016. smanjiti svoj kapacitet za [17 – 20] % u pogledu ASK-a [26] ([7 – 10] % ako se uzmu u obzir samo profitabilne linije).
According to Latvia, such capacity reduction would be in line with past cases.
Prema Latviji, takvo će smanjenje kapaciteta biti u skladu s prethodnim predmetima.
In addition, the restructuring plan includes the release of […] slot pairs as the result of the closure of several routes.
Osim toga, plan restrukturiranja uključuje oslobađanje […] parova slotova uslijed zatvaranja nekoliko linija.
The restructuring plan estimates the restructuring costs at LVL [150 — 170] million (EUR [214 — 242] million), which will be used for repayment of third-party loans, to compensate losses resulting from the phase-out and disposal of certain aircraft, redundancy payments the purchase of new aircraft, etc.
U planu restrukturiranja procijenjeni su troškovi restrukturiranja u iznosu od [150 – 170] milijuna LVL ([214 – 242] milijuna EUR), koji će se upotrebljavati za otplatu zajmova treće stranke, za nadoknadu gubitaka zbog postupnog isključivanja i raspolaganja određenim zrakoplovima, plaćanja viškova, kupnja novih zrakoplova itd.
During the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received comments from Ryanair and airBaltic, as well as three individuals on behalf of creditors of airBaltic.
Za vrijeme formalnog istražnog postupka, Komisija je primila primjedbe Ryanaira i društva airBaltic te tri pojedinca u ime vjerovnika društva airBaltic.
Ryanair agrees with the Commission's preliminary findings that the measures under assessment are inconsistent with the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) and incompatible with the internal market.
Ryanair se slaže s preliminarnim nalazima Komisije da mjere koje se ocjenjuju nisu u skladu s načelom ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu („MEIP”) i da nisu spojive s unutarnjim tržištem.
Ryanair however argues 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 airBaltic upfront instead of providing it with additional capital [27].
Međutim, Ryanair tvrdi da Komisijina ocjena MEIP-a u odluci o pokretanju postupka nije bila potpuna jer je Komisija trebala razmotriti bi li se privatni ulagač odmah odlučio za likvidaciju društva airBaltic umjesto za ulaganja dodatnog kapitala [27].
Ryanair also argues that the Commission should have assessed in its opening decisions whether the liquidation of airBaltic was more profitable for the State than the provision of additional funds.
Ryanair također tvrdi da je Komisija trebala u svojim odlukama o pokretanju postupka ocijeniti je li likvidacija društva airBaltic profitabilnija za državu od ulaganja dodatnih sredstava.
Although Ryanair considers that it had no sufficient information to comment on the reShape plan, it notes its doubts that airBaltic would return to profitability and considered that the company should have been liquidated.
Iako Ryanair smatra da nije imao dovoljno informacija da bi mogao dati primjedbe na plan reShape, napominje da sumnja da će društvo airBaltic opet postati profitabilno i smatra da je to društvo trebalo biti likvidirano.
Ryanair also argues that any aid to airBaltic would harm its market position since Ryanair operates 13 routes from Riga, of which more than half in direct competition with airBaltic.
Ryanair također tvrdi da bi se potporom društvu airBaltic ugrozio njegov položaj na tržištu jer Ryanair leti na 13 linija iz Rige, od kojih je na više od pola izravni konkurent društvu airBaltic.
airBaltic highlights in its comments that the reasons for the difficulties of the company were due to the conduct of the previous management and the unfortunate decisions of Mr Flick before October 2011, who — according to airBaltic — focused on a commercial strategy based solely on expansion and not on profitability.
Društvo airBaltic ističe u svojim komentarima da je društvo zapalo u teškoće zbog postupanja prethodne uprave i loših odluka g. Flicka prije listopada 2011., koji se, prema navodima društva airBaltic, usredotočio na tržišnu strategiju koja se temeljila isključivo na širenju, a ne na profitabilnosti.
Also, airBaltic explains that the previous management of the company entered into many disadvantageous contracts and concluded transaction without business rationale, besides setting up an opaque corporate and organisational structure.
Osim toga, airBaltic objašnjava da je prethodna uprava društva sklopila brojne nepovoljne ugovore i dogovorila transakciju bez poslovne logične osnove te je uspostavila nejasnu korporativnu i ustrojstvenu strukturu.
Also according to airBaltic, when Latvia decided to participate and to execute the Agreement, it acted as a rational private investor. airBaltic notes that Latvia's investment was concomitant to that of BAS and that it had required severe sacrifices from BAS and other private investors.
Osim toga, prema društvu airBaltic, kada je Latvija odlučila sudjelovati i izvršiti Sporazum, ona je postupala kao razuman privatni ulagač. Društvo airBaltic napominje da je ulaganje Latvije izvršeno istodobno kada i ulaganje BAS-a i da su bile potrebne velike žrtve BAS-a i ostalih privatnih ulagača.
In addition, the Agreement included sufficient safeguards to ensure that Latvia's interest were fully protected against BAS; using these safeguards was — according to airBaltic — more rational for Latvia than to breach its investment commitments, thereby causing the company to go bankrupt, destroying the value of the existing shareholders and exposing itself to damage claims by the private investors.
Osim toga, Sporazum sadržava dovoljno zaštitnih mjera kojima se može osigurati da su interesi Latvije potpuno zaštićeni od BAS-a; primjena tih zaštitnih mjera bila je – prema mišljenju društva airBaltic – razumnija za Latviju od povrede obveza ulaganja, čime bi se uzrokovao stečaj društva, uništila vrijednost postojećih dioničara i čime bi se Latvija izložila potraživanjima privatnih ulagača za naknadu štete.
On this basis, airBaltic concludes that the decision of Latvia to enter into the Agreement does not contain elements of state aid.
Na osnovu toga airBaltic zaključuje da odluka Latvije da sklopi sporazum ne sadržava elemente državne potpore.
As regards the acquisition by the State of 0 %-coupon bonds from airBaltic in April 2010 (measure 4), airBaltic is of the opinion that it was economically rational and a fully concomitant investment of the State and BAS and thereby concludes that it did not entail state aid.
U odnosu na činjenicu da je država stekla bezkuponske obveznice od društva airBaltic u travnju 2010. (4. mjera), društvo airBaltic smatra da je je to bilo gospodarski razumno i potpuno istodobno ulaganje države i BAS-a i stoga zaključuje da ono ne predstavlja državnu potporu.
In relation to the payment of EUR 2,8 million by Latvijas Krājbanka to airBaltic on 21 and 22 November 2011 (measure 5), airBaltic considers that these were decisions taken in the course of airBaltic's business and that they concern private funds, thereby excluding the presence of State resources.
U odnosu na plaćanje banke Latvijas Krājbanka društvu airBaltic 21. i 22. studenoga 2011. (5. mjera) u iznosu od 2,8 milijuna EUR, airBaltic smatra da su te odluke donesene tijekom poslovanja društva airBaltic i da se odnose na privatna sredstva, čime je isključeno postojanje državnih sredstava.
Finally, airBaltic highlights the role of airBaltic in keeping Latvia connected with the rest of the EU and provides some information on the implementation of the reShape plan by the new management of the company.
Naposljetku, društvo airBaltic ističe ulogu društva airBaltic u povezivanju Latvije s ostatkom EU-a i daje informacije o tome kako nova uprava poduzeća provodi plan reShape.
As regards the comments provided by three individuals on behalf of creditors of airBaltic, they had a similar structure.
U odnosu na primjedbe triju pojedinaca u ime vjerovnika društva airBaltic, njihova je struktura bila slična.
The creditors complain in general terms about the measures subject to the opening decision, in particular as regards to measure 6.
Vjerovnici se općenito žale na mjere koje su predmet odluke o pokretanju postupka, posebno na 6. mjeru.
In addition, they made reference to certain unpaid debts of airBaltic which apparently had their origin in the Agreement and which allegedly had led some of the creditors into insolvency.
Osim toga, oni su spomenuli određene neplaćene dugove društva airBaltic koji su očito potekli iz Sporazuma i navodno su uzrokovali nesolventnost nekih vjerovnika.
OBSERVATIONS FROM LATVIA ON THE COMMENTS OF INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES
OPAŽANJA LATVIJE U VEZI S PRIMJEDBAMA ZAINTERESIRANIH TREĆIH STRANAKA
In its observations on the comments of third parties, Latvia agreed with airBaltic's views that the measures under assessment did not entail state aid.
U svojim opažanjima o primjedbama trećih stranaka, Latvija se složila sa stajalištem društva airBaltic da mjere koje su predmet ocjene ne predstavljaju državnu potporu.
In relation to Ryanair's comments, Latvia observes that the case-law highlighted by Ryanair — suggesting that the State should have liquidated airBaltic instead of providing it with funds — is not applicable, since at the time the State was not a major creditor of airBaltic but merely a shareholder.
U odnosu na primjedbe Ryanaira, Latvija primjećuje da sudska praksa koju ističe Ryanair – u skladu s kojom je država trebala pokrenuti stečajni postupak protiv društva airBaltic umjesto da u njega ulaže – nije primjenjiva jer u to vrijeme država nije bila glavni vjerovnik društva airBaltic već samo dioničar.