natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The only requests for information would have been submitted outside the framework of the procedure from parties interested in acquiring only certain assets, however at prices significantly lower than those set by the independent experts.
Jedine zahtjeve za dostavu informacija podnijele su strane izvan okvira postupka koje su bile zainteresirane za stjecanje samo određene imovine, no po cijenama koje su znatno niže od cijena koje su odredili neovisni stručnjaci.
SEAH also submitted that Airport Handling had expressed an interest to acquire the assets in question but had not bid.
SEAH je naveo i da je Airport Handling izrazio interes za stjecanje predmetne imovine, ali nije dostavio ponudu.
The Commission notes that the Italian authorities had already declared on 27 November 2013, when they consulted the Commission on SEA’s plan to liquidate SEAH, establish Airport Handling and provide it with capital, that Airport Handling would not participate in the sales procedure and thus would not submit any offer in that procedure.
Komisija napominje da su talijanska tijela već 27. studenoga 2013., kad su se s Komisijom savjetovala o planu društva SEA da likvidira SEAH, osnuje Airport Handling i osigura mu kapital, izjavila da Airport Handling neće sudjelovati u postupku prodaje i da, stoga, u tom postupku neće dostaviti nikakvu ponudu.
Following the unsuccessful attempt to sell out SEAH’s assets, the liquidator proceeded to contact the main operators in the sector to discuss the possibility of a sale of those assets and the conditions that might apply to such sale.
Nakon neuspješnog pokušaja prodaje imovine SEAH-a likvidator je nastavio kontaktirati s glavnim upraviteljima u sektoru kako bi raspravio mogućnost prodaje te imovine i uvjete koji bi se mogli primjenjivati na tu prodaju.
On the valuation of the assets
Vrednovanje imovine
SEAH recalled that prior to the entry into liquidation of SEAH, its Board of Directors had selected IMQ as independent expert entrusted with the valuation of the assets.
SEAH je podsjetio da je prije pokretanja likvidacije SEAH-a njegov Upravni odbor odabrao IMQ kao neovisnog stručnjaka kojem je povjerio vrednovanje imovine.
The valuation was delivered on 25 June 2014 and proposed a lease fee of EUR […] [8] Business secret.
To je vrednovanje dostavljeno 25. lipnja 2014. te je predložena godišnja najamnina od […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
per year, as a value considered in line with market conditions.
EUR, za koju se smatralo da je u skladu s tržišnim uvjetima.
On 1 September 2014, SEAH entrusted E&Y with a second valuation of the assets.
SEAH je 1. rujna 2014. društvu E&Y povjerio drugo vrednovanje imovine.
Upon request from the Trustee, SEAH and the Trustee jointly tasked E&Y with providing such a second valuation.
Na zahtjev upravitelja SEAH i upravitelj zajedno su angažirali E&Y da dostavi to drugo vrednovanje.
E&Y then proposed a lease fee of EUR 1,4 million per year.
E&Y je zatim predložio godišnju najamninu od 1,4 milijuna EUR.
On the lease contract
Ugovor o najmu
According to SEAH, the lease contract prior to its conclusion was subject to intense negotiations between the parties, without any interference from SEA.
SEAH je izjavio da je ugovor o najmu prije sklapanja bio predmet intenzivnih pregovora između strana, bez uplitanja društva SEA.
SEAH submitted that the conclusion of the lease contract is a mandatory condition for the maintenance of the value of the assets in view of their dismissal.
SEAH je naveo da je sklapanje ugovora o najmu obvezan uvjet za održavanje vrijednosti imovine s obzirom na to da se prestala upotrebljavati.
Absent the lease contract with Airport Handling, SEAH would have had to remove the equipment from the airport premises therefore incurring significant transport and maintenance costs.
Bez ugovora o najmu s društvom Airport Handling SEAH bi morao ukloniti opremu iz prostora zračne luke, što bi dovelo do znatnih troškova prijevoza i održavanja.
SEAH also submitted that, given the expiry of the lease contract at 31 August 2015, the liquidator was considering options for the dismissal of the assets.
SEAH je naveo i da je, uzimajući u obzir istek ugovora o najmu 31. kolovoza 2015., likvidator razmatrao opcije raspolaganja imovinom.
SEAH points out that a sale of the assets to Airport Handling once the doubts of the Commission on economic continuity have been alleviated, would enable SEAH to maximise the value of those assets in the liquidation procedure.
SEAH ističe da bi se prodajom imovine društvu Airport Handling, nakon što se otklone Komisijine sumnje o gospodarskom kontinuitetu, omogućilo SEAH-u da maksimizira vrijednost te imovine u postupku likvidacije.
Comments from SEA
Primjedbe društva SEA
In SEA’s view the case law quoted in the 2014 opening decision differs quite significantly from the case at hand.
Prema mišljenju društva SEA sudska praksa navedena u odluci o pokretanju postupka iz 2014. znatno se razlikuje od ovog predmeta.
Firstly, that case-law would exclusively refer to situations characterised by the presence of a transfer of assets from the beneficiary of the aid to a newly created company.
Prvo, ta se sudska praksa isključivo odnosi na situacije koje odlikuje prisutnost prijenosa imovine s korisnika potpore na novoosnovano društvo.
The case law would essentially concern cases where the undertaking which had benefitted from incompatible State aid and was not in the position to repay such advantage established a new undertaking to which it transferred part of its activities.
Ta se sudska praksa, u biti, odnosi na slučajeve u kojima je poduzetnik koji je ostvario korist od nespojive državne potpore i koji tu prednost nije mogao vratiti osnovao novog poduzetnika kojem je prenio dio svojih djelatnosti.
Secondly, in all cases quoted by the Commission, the transfer between the beneficiary and the new undertaking concerned assets of significant value (activities, facilities, goods, property, trademarks, industrial property rights).
Drugo, u svim slučajevima koje je navela Komisija, prijenos između korisnika i novog poduzetnika odnosio se na imovinu znatne vrijednosti (djelatnosti, objekti, roba, nekretnine, žigovi, prava industrijskog vlasništva).
According to SEA, the characteristics of the present case lead to the conclusion that Airport Handling could not have continued to enjoy the competitive advantage linked to presumed aid received by SEAH, given that it had not taken over any assets from SEAH.
Prema mišljenju društva SEA značajke ovog slučaja dovode do zaključka da Airport Handling nije mogao nastaviti ostvarivati konkurentsku prednost povezanu s navodnom potporom koju je primilo društvo SEAH s obzirom na to da nije preuzeo nikakvu imovinu od društva SEAH.
Rather, the alleged competitive advantage granted to SEAH would have been terminated with the liquidation of the company and could not therefore be transferred.
Naprotiv, navodna konkurentska prednost dodijeljena društvu SEAH prestala bi s likvidacijom društva i stoga se ne bi mogla prenijeti.
SEA recalls that in the recovery decision of 2012, the Commission concluded that the alleged competitive advantage granted to SEAH corresponded to the financing of the losses incurred by the company, which were generated mainly by high staff costs.
Društvo SEA podsjeća da je u odluci o povratu iz 2012. Komisija zaključila da navodna konkurentska prednost dodijeljena SEAH-u odgovara financiranju gubitaka koji su nastali za društvo uglavnom kao posljedica visokih troškova osoblja.
While recalling that staff costs have a major impact on the cost structure of ground handling providers, accounting for between 65 % and 80 % of total costs, SEA points out that, unlike those cases quoted by the Commission, the present case does not concern a transfer of shares or assets required to exercise (or rather to continue) SEAH’s activity nor an operation whose aim is to protect the assets of the beneficiary and therefore circumvent the recovery order.
Podsjećajući da troškovi osoblja uvelike utječu na strukturu troškova pružatelja zemaljskih usluga i čine između 65 % i 80 % ukupnih troškova, SEA ističe da se, za razliku od slučajeva koje je navela Komisija, ovaj slučaj ne odnosi ni na prijenos dionica ili imovine potrebne za obavljanje (odnosno za nastavak) djelatnosti SEAH-a ni na poslovanje čiji je cilj zaštititi imovinu korisnika i time izbjeći nalog za povrat.
According to SEA, it should also be noted that since the advantage derived from the alleged State aid received by SEAH was used to cover losses resulting from excessive labour costs, such advantage was definitely terminated with the liquidation of the company and the dismissal of the workers.
Prema mišljenju društva SEA potrebno je napomenuti da, s obzirom na to da je prednost koja je proizašla iz navodne državne potpore koju je primio SEAH bila upotrijebljena za pokrivanje gubitaka nastalih zbog prekomjernih troškova rada, ta je prednost u konačnici prestala sa stečajem društva i otpuštanjem radnika.
In SEA’s view the fact that former employees of SEAH were subsequently recruited by Airport Handling at conditions formally and substantially different, cannot materially alter this conclusion.
Prema mišljenju društva SEA činjenica da su se u društvu Airport Handling bivši zaposlenici SEAH-a naknadno zaposlili prema formalno i materijalno drukčijim uvjetima ne može bitno utjecati na taj zaključak.
SEA adds that, even if it were accepted that the absence of an asset transfer from SEAH to Airport Handling is not sufficient to conclude on the absence of economic continuity, the circumstances of the transaction underlying the creation of Airport Handing, viewed as a whole, cannot be regarded as having had the effect of circumventing the recovery order.
Društvo SEA dodaje da, čak i da je prihvaćeno da nepostojanje prijenosa imovine sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling nije dostatno da bi se zaključilo o nepostojanju gospodarskog kontinuiteta, za okolnosti transakcije na kojoj se temelji osnivanje društva Airport Handling, kao cjeline, ne može se smatrati da imaju učinak izbjegavanja naloga za povrat.
SEA states that SEAH’s announcement that the company would cease operations at Milan airports and SEAH’s entry into liquidation have created a momentum of effective competition on the market, during which the air carriers operating at Milan airports could choose the provider of ground handling services based on a comparative evaluation of the offers submitted by different providers.
SEA navodi da je najavom SEAH-a da će društvo prestati poslovati u milanskim zračnim lukama i pokretanjem likvidacije SEAH-a stvoreno stvarno tržišno natjecanje u kojem su zračni prijevoznici koji su poslovali u milanskim zračnim lukama mogli odabrati pružatelja zemaljskih usluga na temelju komparativne ocjene ponuda koje su dostavili razni pružatelji usluga.
According to SEA it was following this competitive process that Airport Handling successfully concluded contracts with air carriers, in complete independence from SEA.
Prema mišljenju društva SEA upravo je nakon tog postupka nadmetanja Airport Handling uspješno sklopio ugovore sa zračnim prijevoznicima potpuno neovisno od društva SEA.
Indeed, some carriers, formerly clients of SEAH, decided not to use the services of Airport Handling whilst Airport Handling concluded contracts with carriers not previously served by SEAH.
Naime, neki prijevoznici, bivši klijenti SEAH-a, odlučili su ne koristiti se uslugama društva Airport Handling, a Airport Handling sklopio je ugovore s prijevoznicima koje prethodno nije opsluživao SEAH.
In addition, according to SEA, within the meaning of Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC on consolidated financial statements, transposed into Italian legislation by Legislative Decree No 127 of 9 April 1991, failing any power of control and management by SEA of Airport Handling following the transfer of its participation to the Trust, Airport Handling is no longer part of the SEA group for accounting purposes and therefore its budget is not consolidated with that of SEA.
Uz to, prema mišljenju društva SEA, u smislu direktiva Vijeća 78/660/EEZ i 83/349/EEZ o konsolidiranim financijskim izvještajima koje su u talijansko zakonodavstvo prenesene Zakonodavnim dekretom br. 127 od 9. travnja 1991., s obzirom na to da SEA nije imala moć kontrole i upravljanja nad društvom Airport Handling nakon prijenosa udjela na Trust, Airport Handling više nije dio grupe SEA za računovodstvene potrebe i stoga njegov proračun nije konsolidiran s proračunom društva SEA.
Furthermore, in order to speed up the entry of third parties in the capital of Airport Handling, SEA and the Trustee on 26 January 2015 signed an ‘implementing regulation under Article 20 of the Trust Deed’, with the aim of conferring to the Trustee the responsibility to look for a third-party investor.
Nadalje, kako bi ubrzali ulazak trećih osoba u kapital društva Airport Handling, SEA i upravitelj potpisali su 26. siječnja 2015. „provedbena pravila na temelju članka 20. Ugovora o trustu” u cilju dodjele upravitelju odgovornosti za skrb o trećem ulagaču.
The Trustee and SEA decided to appoint BNP Paribas as independent advisor for the assignment.
Upravitelj i SEA odlučili su imenovati BNP Paribas neovisnim savjetnikom u tu svrhu.
BNP Paribas assisted Airport Handling in the preparation of the offer for the sale of shares, took contact with several investors potentially interested to enter the capital of Airport Handling and carried out meetings with potential investors.
BNP Paribas pružio je potporu društvu Airport Handling pri izradi ponude za prodaju dionica, kontaktirao je s nekoliko ulagača koji su bili potencijalno zainteresirani za ulazak u kapital društva Airport Handling i održao je sastanke s potencijalnim ulagačima.
SEA added that once a private investor has acquired at least 30 % of Airport Handling, SEA will consider searching for investors interested to take over the majority shareholding in the company.
SEA je dodala da će, kad privatni ulagač stekne najmanje 30 % društva Airport Handling, razmotriti traženje zainteresiranih ulagača za preuzimanje većinskog udjela u društvu.
On State resources and imputability
Državna sredstva i pripisivost državi
SEA is of the view that the fact that Airport Handling is a public undertaking is not sufficient to conclude that its resources are State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
SEA smatra da činjenica da je Airport Handling javni poduzetnik nije dostatna da bi se zaključilo da su njegova sredstva državna sredstva u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora.
In addition, following the setting up of the Trust, the financial resources of Airport Handling are not under the control of SEA, therefore it cannot be claimed that they are State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Uz to, nakon osnivanja Trusta SEA ne kontrolira financijska sredstva društva Airport Handling; stoga se ne može tvrditi da su ona državna sredstva u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. Ugovora.
In this respect, SEA adds that:
U tom pogledu SEA dodaje:
A first increase of capital, amounting to EUR 3,7 million, was approved by the general meeting of shareholders of Airport Handling on 27 August 2014.
Prvo povećanje kapitala u iznosu od 3,7 milijuna EUR odobrila je glavna skupština društva Airport Handling 27. kolovoza 2014.
On the same date the Trust was vested with SEA’s entire participation in SEAH.
Istog je dana Trustu dodijeljen cijeli udio društva SEA u SEAH-u.
On that date the Trustee became, for all legal purposes, sole shareholder of Airport Handling.
Tog je dana, za sve pravne svrhe, upravitelj postao jedini dioničar društva Airport Handling,
SEA underlines that, since their transfer, the financial resources of Airport Handling have remained at all times under the control of the Trustee, the sole shareholder of Airport Handling.
SEA ističe da je od trenutka prijenosa upravitelj, jedini dioničar društva Airport Handling, imao neprekinutu kontrolu nad njegovim financijskim sredstvima.
In SEA’s view the above shows that the public shareholder of SEA (Municipality of Milan), cannot exercise — directly or indirectly — any influence on the use of financial instruments in respect of Airport Handling and that throughout the duration of the Trust, such resources will remain under the control of the Trustee.
Prema mišljenju društva SEA prethodno navedenim dokazuje se da javni dioničar društva SEA (općina Milano) ne može, izravno ili neizravno, utjecati na upotrebu financijskih instrumenata u odnosu na društvo Airport Handling i da će tijekom trajanja Trusta ta sredstva kontrolirati upravitelj.
In any event, as a result of the establishment of the Trust, SEA lost its power to appoint the members of the Board of Directors of Airport Handling.
U svakom slučaju, kao rezultat osnivanja Trusta, SEA je izgubila ovlast imenovanja članova Upravnog odbora društva Airport Handling.
Comments from an interested party
Primjedbe zainteresirane strane
The Commission received comments from an interested party who demanded that neither its identity nor its comments be disclosed to any third party.
Komisija je zaprimila primjedbe zainteresirane strane koja je zatražila da se njezin identitet i njezine primjedbe ne objave trećim stranama.
COMMENTS FROM ITALY ON THE INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS
PRIMJEDBE ITALIJE NA PRIMJEDBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANA
Italy commented on the observations submitted in the framework of the investigation by the Trust and SEA.
Italija je dala svoje primjedbe na opažanja koja su u okviru istrage dostavili Trust i SEA.
Italy supported in full the observations submitted by the above mentioned interested parties and underlined that they evidenced on one side the lack of any interference from the Italian authorities on SEA’s activity and the latter’s decision to invest in Airport Handling, and, on the other side, that Airport Handling does not continue the economic activity of SEAH.
Italija je u potpunosti podržala opažanja koja su dostavile prethodno navedene zainteresirane strane te je istaknula da su one, s jedne strane, dokazale nepostojanje bilo kakvog uplitanja talijanskih nadležnih tijela u poslovanje društva SEA i njegove odluke o ulaganju u Airport Handling, i, s druge strane, da Airport Handling nije nastavio obavljati gospodarsku djelatnost SEAH-a.
ASSESSMENT
OCJENJIVANJE
In this case, the Commission had to assess two distinct matters: First, the possible transfer of the recovery obligation stemming from the recovery decision from SEA Handling to Airport Handling; second, possible aid inherent in SEA’s EUR 25 million capital injection in Airport Handling.
U ovom je predmetu Komisija morala ocijeniti dva različita pitanja: prvo, mogući prijenos obveze povrata koja proizlazi iz odluke o povratu s društva SEA Handling na Airport Handling, drugo, moguću potporu sadržanu u dokapitalizaciji društva Airport Handling od 25 milijuna EUR koju je provela SEA.
Economic continuity and transfer of the recovery obligation
Gospodarski kontinuitet i prijenos obveze povrata
Based on settled case law, unlawful and incompatible aid must be recovered from the undertakings that actually benefited from it.
Na temelju ustaljene sudske prakse nezakonitu potporu koja nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem mora vratiti onaj poduzetnik koji je u stvarnosti od nje ostvario korist.
In case of insolvent beneficiaries of State aid, the recovery obligation can be fulfilled by registration of the liability relating to the repayment of the aid in the schedule of liabilities, provided that the aid beneficiary exits the market.
U slučaju korisnika državne potpore u stečaju obveza povrata može se ispuniti unosom obveze s naslova povrata potpore u popis obveza, pod uvjetom da korisnik potpore izađe s tržišta.
The Court held that ‘where the undertaking which received the unlawful aid is insolvent and a company has been created to continue some of the activities of the insolvent undertaking, the pursuit of those activities may, where the aid concerned is not recovered in its entirety, prolong the distortion of competition brought about by the competitive advantage which that company enjoyed in the market as compared with its competitors. Accordingly, such a newly created company may, if it retains that advantage, be required to repay the aid in question. That is the case where it is established that that company continues genuinely to derive a competitive advantage because of the receipt of that aid, especially where it acquires the assets of the company in liquidation without paying the market price in return or where it is established that the effect of that company’s creation is circumvention of the obligation to repay the aid’.
Sud je smatrao da „ako je poduzeće koje je primilo nezakonitu potporu u stečaju te je osnovano društvo kako bi se nastavio dio djelatnosti tog poduzeća u stečaju, nastavkom te djelatnosti moglo bi se, ako dotična potpora nije u potpunosti vraćena, nastaviti narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja do kojeg je došlo zbog konkurentske prednosti koju je to društvo uživalo na tržištu u odnosu na svoje konkurente. U skladu s time, ako takvo novoosnovano društvo zadrži tu prednost, od njega se može tražiti povrat predmetne potpore. To je osobito slučaj kada se utvrdi da to društvo zadržava stvarno uživanje konkurentske prednosti povezane s korištenjem tih potpora, osobito kada ono stekne imovinu društva u likvidaciji a da pritom ne plati kao protučinidbu cijenu u skladu s tržišnim uvjetima ili kada se utvrdi da je učinak osnivanja takvog društva zaobilaženje obveze povrata navedenih potpora.”
In the context of the transfer of assets from an aid beneficiary to another company that continues the former’s activities, the Court confirmed that the following factors may be taken into consideration for the assessment of economic continuity between the two companies: the scope of the transfer (assets and liabilities, continuity of the workforce, bundled assets, etc.); the transfer price; the identity of the shareholders or owners of the acquiring firm and of the original firm; the moment at which the transfer is carried out (after the start of the investigation, the initiation of the procedure or the final decision); and, lastly, the economic logic of the transaction.
U kontekstu prijenosa imovine s korisnika potpore na drugo društvo koje nastavlja obavljati djelatnosti korisnika potpore Sud je potvrdio da se sljedeći čimbenici mogu uzeti u obzir za ocjenu gospodarskog kontinuiteta između dvaju društava: opseg prijenosa (imovina i obveze, preuzimanje radne snage, vezana imovina itd.); cijena prijenosa; identitet dioničara ili vlasnika poduzeća stjecatelja i izvornog poduzeća; trenutak obavljanja prijenosa (nakon početka istražnog postupka, pokretanja postupka ili donošenja konačne odluke); i, na kraju, ekonomska logika transakcije.
According to case law, the aforementioned factors may be taken into account to varying degrees, according to the specific features of the case at hand.
Prema sudskoj praksi prethodno navedeni čimbenici mogu se uzeti u obzir u različitoj mjeri, u skladu s posebnostima predmetnog slučaja.
It follows that the Commission is not required to take into account the whole of those factors, as is demonstrated by use of the expression ‘may be taken into consideration’.
Iz toga slijedi da Komisija nije obvezna uzeti u obzir sve te čimbenike, kako se dokazuje upotrebom izraza „mogu se uzeti u obzir”.
In order to decide whether there is economic continuity between SEAH and Airport Handling and the latter may be held liable for the reimbursement of the incompatible aid granted to the former, the Commission applied the aforementioned indicators to the specific circumstances of the case at issue.
Kako bi se odlučilo postoji li gospodarski kontinuitet društava SEAH i Airport Handling i može li se potonje društvo smatrati odgovornim za povrat nespojive potpore dodijeljene SEAH-u, Komisija je primijenila prethodno navedene pokazatelje na određene okolnosti ovog predmeta.
Scope of the transfer
Opseg prijenosa
Transfer of workforce and work contracts
Prijenos radne snage i ugovora o radu