natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After SEAH was put into liquidation, many of its former employees were reemployed by Airport Handling, constituting initially the majority of the latter’s workforce.
Nakon pokretanja likvidacije SEAH-a, brojni njegovi bivši zaposlenici zaposleni su u društvu Airport Handling, pri čemu su na početku činili većinu radne snage potonjeg društva.
Therefore, it is relevant to analyse whether this situation is not indicative of a circumvention of the recovery decision.
Stoga je važno analizirati je li ta situacija pokazatelj izbjegavanja odluke o povratu.
To that effect, it should be assessed whether the process that led to that outcome did not amount to transferring SEAH’s workforce into Airport Handling while preserving its core features.
U tu bi svrhu trebalo ocijeniti je li se postupak koji je doveo do navedenog ishoda sastojao od prijenosa radne snage SEAH-a na društvo Airport Handling i jesu li pritom očuvane njegove temeljne značajke.
It is all the more relevant since for a ground handling company, workforce is the primary resource necessary to operate.
Navedeno je još važnije jer je za društvo za pružanje zemaljskih usluga radna snaga primarno sredstvo potrebno za rad.
According to Italy there is no continuity of workforce between SEAH and Airport Handling as work contracts were terminated by SEAH and staff was employed by Airport Handling under new contracts, based on substantially different conditions.
Prema mišljenju Italije ne postoji kontinuitet radne snage između SEAH-a i društva Airport Handling jer je SEAH raskinuo ugovore o radu te se osoblje u društvo Airport Handling zaposlilo na temelju novih ugovora koji su se temeljili na materijalno drukčijim uvjetima.
This view was supported by both Airport Handling and SEA.
To su stajalište podržali Airport Handling i SEA.
In Italy’s view the agreement signed by SEA, SEAH and the trade unions on 4 November 2013 should not be construed to have guaranteed former employees of SEAH the rights acquired under the previous contracts with SEAH.
Prema mišljenju Italije sporazum koji su SEA, SEAH i sindikati potpisali 4. studenoga 2013. ne bi se trebao tumačiti kao da su njime bivšim zaposlenicima SEAH-a bila zajamčena prava koja su oni stekli na temelju prethodni ugovora sa SEAH-om.
Such agreement would be an essentially programmatic document which was subsequently replaced by the agreements signed on 4 June 2014.
Taj je sporazum, u biti, programski dokument koji je naknadno zamijenjen sporazumima potpisanima 4. lipnja 2014.
It would be evident from the wording of those agreements that former employees of SEAH were not guaranteed previously acquired rights but were rather re-employed by Airport Handling under new conditions.
Iz teksta tih sporazuma očito je da bivšim zaposlenicima SEAH-a nisu bila zajamčena prethodno stečena prava, nego da su u društvu Airport Handling ponovno zaposleni prema novim uvjetima.
Based on information obtained in the formal investigation procedure, the Commission assessed (i) the process whereby a significant part of SEAH’s workforce was reemployed by Airport Handling, (ii) and the agreements with trade unions on the reemployment of SEAH’s workforce.
Na temelju informacija pribavljenih tijekom službenog istražnog postupka Komisija je ocijenila i. postupak u kojem je znatan dio radne snage SEAH-a ponovno zaposlen u društvu Airport Handling, ii. i sindikalne sporazume o ponovnom zapošljavanju radne snage SEAH-a.
Firstly, as regards the process, it should be noted at the outset that there was no de jure transfer of work contracts from SEAH to Airport Handling.
Prvo, u pogledu postupka potrebno je odmah napomenuti da nije bilo prijenosa de jure ugovora o radu sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling.
Contracts with SEAH were legally terminated and new contracts were concluded with Airport Handling.
Ugovori sa SEAH-om pravno su raskinuti i sklopljeni su novi ugovori s društvom Airport Handling.
Moreover, work contracts were neither automatically nor globally transferred from SEAH to Airport Handling.
Nadalje, ugovori o radu nisu ni automatski ni globalno preneseni sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling.
In fact, no transfer whatsoever of work contracts took place.
De facto, nije bilo nikakvog prijenosa ugovora o radu.
Rather, the former company terminated the work contracts prior to reemployment of part of the workers by the latter on different conditions.
Upravo suprotno, prethodno društvo raskinulo je ugovore o radu prije nego što je dio radnika u potonjem društvu ponovno zaposlen pod drukčijim uvjetima.
Secondly, as regards the scope of the transfer, the following is to be noted: On 22 April 2014, when SEAH initiated the laid-off workers’ mobility scheme, its workforce was […] [8] Business secret.
Drugo, u pogledu opsega prijenosa potrebno je napomenuti sljedeće: Kad je SEAH 22. travnja 2014. pokrenuo program mobilnosti za otpuštene radnike, njegova je radna snaga bila […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
strong, equivalent to […] [8] Business secret.
, odnosno jednaka […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
FTEs.
EPRV-ova.
Available data shows that on 31 May 2015, 9 months into its operations, Airport Handling had […] [8] Business secret.
Na temelju dostupnih podataka vidljivo je da je 31. svibnja 2015., devet mjeseci od početka poslovanja, društvo Airport Handling imalo […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
employees, of which […] [8] Business secret.
zaposlenika, od kojih je […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
had been previously employed by SEAH.
bilo prethodno zaposleno u SEAH-u.
Hence, Airport Handling had until then taken over approx. […] [8] Business secret.
Stoga je Airport Handling do tog trenutka preuzeo oko […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
% of SEAH’s employees.
% SEAH-ovih zaposlenika.
The transfer was therefore not complete, and not even practically complete.
Prijenos, stoga, nije bio ni približno potpun.
Nevertheless, it is also to be noted that Airport Handling’s workforce, at least in the early phase after starting operations, consisted almost exclusively of former SEAH staff.
Međutim, potrebno je napomenuti i da se radna snaga društva Airport Handling, barem u ranoj fazi nakon početka poslovanja, sastojala gotovo isključivo od bivšeg osoblja SEAH-a.
Thirdly, as regards the material conditions of the re-employment, the Commission notes that contracts signed by Airport Handling with former SEAH employees differed both formally and materially from the previous contracts with SEAH in particular in that different conditions apply concerning:
Treće, u pogledu materijalnih uvjeta ponovnog zapošljavanja Komisija napominje da su se ugovori koje je Airport Handling potpisao s bivšim SEAH-ovim zaposlenicima formalno i materijalno razlikovali od prethodnih ugovora sa SEAH-om, posebno u primjeni različitih uvjeta kako slijedi:
Airport Handling does not apply the […] [8] Business secret.
Airport Handling ne primjenjuje […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
supplementing the national collective labour agreement,
kojim se dopunjuje nacionalni kolektivni ugovor,
the material changes to employment conditions are encompassing:
Materijalnim promjenama uvjeta zapošljavanja obuhvaćeno je sljedeće:
, which SEAH used to apply to its employees,
, što je društvo SEAH primjenjivalo na svoje zaposlenike,
work organisation, e.g. […] [8] Business secret.
organizacija rada, npr. […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
a measurable result of above listed changes is the reduction of labour costs of around […] [8] Business secret.
Mjerljiv rezultat prethodno navedenih promjena jest smanjenje troškova rada od oko […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
%, as compared to SEAH’s labour costs, both resulting from the changes in the applicable national collective labour regime and the supplementary corporate contract; the weight of the terms of the latter on labour costs was reduced by 50 %.
% u odnosu na troškove rada SEAH-a koji su u oba slučaja posljedica promjena mjerodavnog sustava nacionalnih kolektivnih ugovora i dopunskog korporativnog ugovora; udjel uvjeta potonjeg ugovora u troškovima rada smanjen je za 50 %.
Lastly, also the circumstances under which the terms of employment were negotiated between the parties involved and ultimately agreed in this case indicate that employment conditions changed materially: SEA, SEAH and Airport Handling negotiated separately with trade unions and reached separate agreements with them.
Konačno, i okolnostima u kojima su uključene strane u ovom predmetu pregovarale o uvjetima zapošljavanja i u konačnici se usuglasile upućuje se na to da su se uvjeti zapošljavanja materijalno promijenili: SEA, SEAH i Airport Handling zasebno su pregovarali sa sindikatima i postigli su s njima zasebne dogovore.
It took Airport Handling and trade unions more than 8 months to reach an agreement on the terms of the recruitment procedure, the legal and financial content of employment contracts, welfare policy and work organisation.
Društvu Airport Handling i sindikatima trebalo je više od osam mjeseci za postizanje dogovora o uvjetima postupka zapošljavanja, pravnom i financijskom sadržaju ugovora o radu, politici skrbi i organizaciji rada.
According to the Trust, SEAH workers initially opposed the changes to which trade unions representing the workers had consented in the agreement of June 2014.
Prema mišljenju predstavnika Trusta SEAH-ovi su se radnici na početku protivili promjenama na koje su sindikati koji su predstavljali radnike pristali u sporazumu iz lipnja 2014.
Workers rejected these changes in a referendum.
Radnici su te promjene odbili na referendumu.
According to documentation provided by the Trust, Trade Unions then only agreed to the new employment terms after Airport Handling accepted to introduce certain clarifications to aforesaid agreement.
Prema dokumentaciji koju je dostavio Trust sindikati su zatim pristali na nove uvjete zapošljavanja tek nakon što je Airport Handling prihvatio da će unijeti određena pojašnjenja u navedeni sporazum.
The Commission notes that Airport Handling negotiated separately with the trade unions and, despite initial disagreements, it succeeded in implementing the above described changes.
Komisija napominje da je Airport Handling zasebno pregovarao sa sindikatima i da je unatoč početnim neslaganjima uspio provesti prethodno opisane promjene.
As was described in recital 38 above, the agreement between Airport Handling and trade unions, of 4 June 2014 has not been altered materially after trade unions rejected it in a referendum, where they demanded a number of clarifications to that agreement.
Kao što je opisano u prethodnoj uvodnoj izjavi 38., sporazum između društva Airport Handling i sindikata od 4. lipnja 2014. nije bitno promijenjen nakon što su ga sindikati odbili na referendumu na kojem su zahtijevali određena pojašnjenja sporazuma.
In light of the above considerations, the actual workforce transfer was neither complete nor did it imply any replication in substance of employment conditions prevailing under the SEAH contracts.
S obzirom na prethodna razmatranja, stvarni prijenos radne snage nije bio potpun niti je podrazumijevao ikakvo preslikavanje sadržaja uvjeta zapošljavanja koji su bili mjerodavni na temelju ugovora sa SEAH-om.
This finding is not affected by the agreements between respectively SEA, SEAH and Airport Handling with the trade union organisations concerning the workforce.
Na taj nalaz ne utječu sporazumi između društva SEA, SEAH odnosno Airport Handling te sindikata u pogledu radne snage.
Indeed, the objective of the agreements does neither indicate that the workforce would be completely transferred from SEAH to Airport Handling, nor that the conditions prevailing under SEAH’s work contracts would be continued.
Naime, u predmetu sporazuma nije navedeno ni da će radna snaga u potpunosti biti prenesena sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling ni da će mjerodavni uvjeti iz SEAH-ova ugovora o radu nastaviti vrijediti.
The Commission notes in particular that according to the initial draft settlement of 4 November 2013 between SEA and trade unions, a future implementing agreement must be inspired by the objective to safeguard the jobs of all SEAH personnel.
Komisija posebno napominje da prema početnom nacrtu nagodbe društva SEA i sindikata od 4. studenoga 2013. cilj budućeg provedbenog sporazuma mora biti zaštita radnih mjesta svih zaposlenika SEAH-a.
That agreement enumerates a number of measures to attain that objective, in essence all mechanisms made available by the relevant legislation governing employment and collective bargaining such as social safety nets and voluntary redundancies, also to be implemented within the SEA Group, and solutions involving relocation within the Group.
U sporazumu je nabrojeno nekoliko mjera za postizanje tog cilja, u biti svi mehanizmi dostupni u okviru relevantnog zakonodavstva o zapošljavanju i kolektivnih ugovora, kao što su mreže za socijalnu pomoć i dobrovoljni odlasci zaposlenika, što treba primijeniti i u okviru grupe SEA, te rješenja koja uključuju premještaj zaposlenika unutar te grupe.
Hence, that agreement indeed implied that jobs were to be reattributed within the SEA group as a whole, but not only to Airport Handling, and only as one measure among several.
Stoga je taj sporazum doista podrazumijevao ponovnu dodjelu radnih mjesta unutar grupe SEA kao cjeline, ali ne samo društvu Airport Handling i samo kao jednu od mjera.
Moreover, those agreements were not concluded with Airport Handling, which concluded separate agreements with the personnel.
Nadalje, ti sporazumi nisu sklopljeni s društvom Airport Handling koje je sa zaposlenicima sklopilo zasebne sporazume.
Therefore, the number of jobs reallocated to Airport Handling was not pre-determined by the parties but was established following the company’s staffing needs after conclusion of the contracts with the airlines.
Stoga strane nisu unaprijed odredile broj radnih mjesta preraspodijeljenih društvu Airport Handling, nego je on utvrđen u skladu s potrebama društva za zaposlenicima nakon sklapanja ugovora sa zračnim prijevoznicima.
The Commission further notes that there is no indication that Airport Handling was under any obligation, imposed either by public authorities or by its mother company SEA, to employ former SEAH staff.
Nadalje, Komisija napominje da postoje naznake da je Airport Handling bio obvezan zaposliti bivše zaposlenike SEAH-a, neovisno o tome je su li tu obvezu nametnula javna tijela ili SEA, njegovo matično društvo.
In conclusion, as regards the scope of the transfer of the workforce, the Commission considers that the circumstances indicate a prima facie stronger element of economic continuity due to the reemployment of a significant part of SEAH’s workforce by Airport Handling.
Zaključno, u pogledu opsega prijenosa radne snage Komisija smatra da se okolnostima prima facie upućuje na izraženiji element gospodarskog kontinuiteta zbog ponovnog zapošljavanja znatnog dijela SEAH-ove radne snage u društvu Airport Handling.
However, the facts surrounding the reemployment must be taken into account, in particular the termination of all contracts and the conclusion of new contracts with new contractual conditions.
Međutim, potrebno je uzeti u obzir činjenice u pogledu ponovnog zapošljavanja, posebno raskida svih ugovora i sklapanja novih s novim ugovornim uvjetima.
The Commission therefore concludes that the workforce transfer cannot be construed as a strong indication of economic continuity between SEAH and Airport Handling.
Komisija, stoga, zaključuje da se prijenos radne snage ne može tumačiti kao snažna naznaka gospodarskog kontinuiteta između SEAH-a i društva Airport Handling.
Contracts with air carriers
Ugovori za zračnim prijevoznicima
In its 2014 opening decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that Airport Handling’s expected market shares for the first 6 months of operations could only be seen as realistic due to the insourcing of business previously undertaken by SEAH.
U svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka iz 2014. Komisija je zauzela preliminarno stajalište da bi se očekivani tržišni udjeli društva Airport Handling za prvih šest mjeseci poslovanja mogli smatrati realnima zbog preuzimanja poslovanja koje je prethodno obavljao SEAH.
In the course of the investigation, Italy, SEA and Airport Handling claimed that those expectations were based on Airport Handling’s business plan of August 2014.
Tijekom istražnog postupka Italija, SEA i Airport Handling tvrdili su da su se ta očekivanja temeljila na poslovnom planu društva Airport Handling iz kolovoza 2014.
They were made possible by laying down significant reductions in operating costs, gained through labour efficiency and personnel reduction.
Bila su moguća zahvaljujući znatnim smanjenima operativnih troškova koja su ostvarena zbog djelotvornosti radne snage i smanjenja osoblja.
Moreover, the contracts with airlines operating at Milan airports were negotiated ex novo by Airport Handling.
Nadalje, Airport Handling je iznova pregovarao o ugovorima sa zračnim prijevoznicima koji posluju u milanskim zračnim lukama.
According to Italy, such contracts could not be legally transferred from SEAH to Airport Handling.
Italija je smatrala da se ti ugovoru nisu mogli zakonski prenijeti sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling.
They had to be negotiated ex novo in competition with the other service providers operating at Milan airports.
O njima se moralo iznova pregovarati u konkurenciji s ostalim pružateljima usluga koji posluju u milanskim zračnim lukama.
Indeed, as was described above in recitals 133 and 208, Airport Handling’s client portfolio differs from that of SEAH.
Naime, kako je prethodno opisano u uvodnim izjavama 133. i 208. portfelj klijenata društva Airport Handling razlikuje se od SEAH-ova.
When SEAH exited the market, a number of its clients decided to entrust ground handling services to operators other than Airport Handling.
Kad je SEAH izašao s tržišta, niz njegovih klijenata odlučio je zemaljske usluge povjeriti drugim subjektima, a ne društvu Airport Handling.
Conversely, Airport Handling managed to attract customers which were not previously served by SEAH.
S druge strane, Airport Handling uspio je privući klijente koji prije nisu bili klijenti SEAH-a.
In order to further evidence the fact that the new contracts concluded by Airport Handling with the air carriers were not only subject to ex novo negotiation but also provide for materially different contractual conditions, Italy submitted information showing that certain airlines previously served by SEAH (such as […] [8] Business secret.
Kako bi dodatno dokazala činjenicu da novi ugovori koje je Airport Handling sklopio sa zračnim prijevoznicima nisu bili samo predmet novih pregovora, nego da su u njima predviđeni materijalno drukčiji ugovorni uvjeti, Italija je dostavila informacije iz kojih je vidljivo da su određeni zračni prijevoznici koji su prije bili klijenti SEAH-a (kao što je […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
) were able to obtain significantly more favourable conditions from Airport Handling than from SEAH.
) uspjeli dobiti znatno povoljnije uvjete od društva Airport Handling, nego od SEAH-a.
In particular, in the course of the negotiations with Airport Handling, […] [8] Business secret.
Konkretno, tijekom pregovora s društvom Airport Handling, […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
requested that […] [8] Business secret.
zatražio je da […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
As a result[…] [8] Business secret.
Kao rezultat […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
obtained a […] [8] Business secret.
dobio je […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
In the course of the investigation, Italy explained that SEA had not conditioned the granting of discounts from airport charges to air carriers operating at Milan airports on conclusion by the latter of ground handling contracts with Airport Handling.
Tijekom istražnog postupka Italija je objasnila da SEA zračnim prijevoznicima koji posluju u milanskim zračnim lukama nije uvjetovala popuste na naknade zračne luke njihovim sklapanjem ugovora o pružanju zemaljskih usluga s društvom Airport Handling.
Based on the comments received in the investigation, there is no documentary evidence to prove that SEA would have effectively engaged in such behaviour in order to induce airlines operating at Milan airports to conclude new ground handling contracts with Airport Handling.
Na temelju primjedbi zaprimljenih tijekom istražnog postupka ne postoje dokumenti na temelju kojih se može dokazati da je SEA stvarno tako postupala kako bi zračne prijevoznike koji posluju u milanskim zračnim lukama potaknula da sklope nove ugovore o pružanju zemaljskih usluga s društvom Airport Handling.
In the 2014 opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts that contracts with the airlines would be renegotiated.
U odluci o pokretanju postupka iz 2014. Komisija je izrazila sumnju u to hoće li se sa zračnim prijevoznicima ponovno pregovarati o ugovorima.
In that context the Commission pointed to information that suggests that even before the expiry of such contracts, SEA and Airport Handling had engaged in joint marketing efforts aiming at reassuring airlines operating at the airport that SEA would continue the ground handling business.
U tom je kontekstu Komisija uputila na informacije iz kojih se može zaključiti da su SEA i Airport Handling, čak i prije isteka tih ugovora, ulagali zajedničke marketinške napore kako bi zračne prijevoznike koji posluju u zračnoj luci uvjerili da će SEA nastaviti obavljati poslove zemaljskih usluga.
The formal investigation procedure however did not produce any factual evidence that SEA and Airport Handling had organised, through joint marketing efforts, a mere change of contractor without leaving the airlines, as principals, a margin for renegotiation of the contractual terms.
Međutim, tijekom službenog istražnog postupka nisu dobiveni nikakvi činjenični podatci da su SEA i Airport Handling u okviru zajedničkih marketinških napora organizirali samo promjenu izvođača, a da pritom zračnim prijevoznicima, kao naručiteljima, nisu ostavili prostora za ponovno pregovaranje o ugovornim uvjetima.
In particular, the Commission did not obtain any evidence that either SEA or Airport Handling would have been in a position to effectively frustrate attempts of former SEAH-customers to obtain more favourable terms from other ground handling providers.
Konkretno, Komisija nije dobila nikakve dokaze da je SEA ili Airport Handling mogao stvarno otežavati pokušaje bivših klijenata SEAH-a da dobiju povoljnije uvjete od drugih pružatelja zemaljskih usluga.
The Commission assessed if Airport Handling, when preparing its entry into business, de-facto was in the position of a new entrant or rather benefitted from SEAH’s market position and customer contacts, so as to ensure the continuity of operations.
Komisija je ocijenila je li Airport Handling, kad je pripremao pokretanje poslovanja, de facto bio u situaciji novog sudionika na tržištu ili je, naprotiv, ostvario koristi od SEAH-ova tržišnog položaja i kontakata s klijentima kako bi osigurao kontinuitet poslovanja.
Under the specific circumstances of the case in hand, if SEAH’s market exit had not resulted in an opportunity for its customers to negotiate new contracts with ground handlers other than Airport Handling, this could be indicative of a circumvention of the recovery decision in that it would amount to a transfer of customers from SEAH to Airport Handling.
U specifičnim okolnostima ovog predmeta, da nakon izlaska SEAH-a s tržišta njegovi klijenti nisu mogli pregovarati o novim ugovorima s drugim pružateljima zemaljskih usluga osim društvom Airport Handling, to bi bio pokazatelj izbjegavanja odluke o povratu jer bi to bio prijenos klijenata sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling.
In that respect, the following is of particular relevance: Airport Handling’s business plan did not consider alternative scenarios with lower market shares.
U tom su pogledu važne sljedeće činjenice: U poslovnom planu društva Airport Handling nisu uzeti u obzir drugi scenariji s manjim tržišnim udjelima.