natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the experts had established that Airport Handling is the only handler with sufficient assets and equipment to guarantee 24-hour full service, which would be a key advantage with respect to competitors.
Stručnjaci su smatrali da je ta pretpostavka razumna jer je Airport Handling pregovarao o novim ugovorima o radu, pri čemu su zaposlenici pristali raditi dodatnih 20 dana godišnje u odnosu na prethodne ugovore sa SEAH-om.
The experts also found that lower personnel costs was one of the key reasons why Airport Handling expected to be profitable although SEAH had been loss making.
Nadalje, u skladu s izvješćem grupe Brattle, iako su u poslovnom planu iz studenoga 2013. troškovi rada neznatno podcijenjeni, u poslovnom planu iz kolovoza 2014. prikazani su troškovi od […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
The experts considered such assumption as reasonable, since Airport Handling was negotiating new labour contracts where workers agreed to work 20 additional days per year relative to the previous SEAH contracts.
EUR/sat izraženi u EPRV-u, […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
Moreover, according to the Brattle report, although the business plan of November 2013 slightly underestimated labour costs, the business plan of August 2014 showed FTE costs of EUR […] [8] Business secret.
Prema mišljenju stručnjaka pri ulaganju u Airport Handling ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu očekivao bi stopu povrata (unutarnju stopu povrata – IRR) koja je jednaka ponderiranom prosječnom trošku kapitala (WACC) ili veća od njega, u skladu sa standardnom financijskom teorijom.
/hour, […] [8] Business secret.
U tom je slučaju na temelju izračuna potvrđeno da je u svim scenarijima očekivani IRR projekta viši od WACC-a i da bi, stoga, privatni ulagač očekivao da će ostvariti dobit od svojeg ulaganja u Airport Handling.
In the experts’ view, when investing in Airport Handling, a market economy investor would have expected to earn a rate of return (Internal Rate of Return — IRR) equal to or greater than the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) according to standard financial theory.
Konzultant je napomenuo i da je, kad je SEA donijela odluku o osnivanju društva Airport Handling 2013., fond s privatnom ponudom F2i bio vlasnik 44,31 % društva.
In this case the calculations confirmed that in all scenarios the expected IRR of the project exceeds the WACC and therefore a private investor would have expected to earn profit from its investment in Airport Handling.
F2i imenuje dva člana Upravnog odbora društva SEA te, u skladu s izvješćem grupe Brattle, nijedan član Odbora nije glasovao protiv prijedloga društva SEA za ulaganje u Airport Handling, čime se dokazuje da se očekivalo da će ulaganje biti profitabilno i da je, stoga, u skladu s načelom ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
The consultant also noted that when SEA made its decision to set up Airport Handling in 2013, the private equity fund F2i owned 44,31 % of the company.
Nadalje, u skladu s izvješćem grupe Brattle ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu smatrao bi da je relativno mala vjerojatnost da će Komisija utvrditi gospodarski kontinuitet između SEAH-a i društva Airport Handling te da će, stoga, od potonjeg zatražiti da vrati potporu koja je u odluci o povratu utvrđena kao nespojiva.
F2i appoints two members to SEA’s Board of Directors and according to the Brattle report neither Board member had voted against the proposal for SEA to invest in Airport Handling, which would evidence that the investment was expected to be profitable and was therefore consistent with the market economy investor principle.
Razlog je tome činjenica da je SEA osnivanjem Trusta poduzela mjere kako bi zaštitila Airport Handling i spriječila gospodarski kontinuitet.
This is because SEA undertook measures to ring-fence Airport Handling and to prevent economic continuity, such as the setting up of the Trust.
Brattle je smatrao razumnim pretpostavku da bi, uzimajući u obzir kontekst i posebno prijavu Komisiji, ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu smatrao da je ta vjerojatnost manja od […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
According to Brattle’s financial estimations on the November 2013 business plan, as long as the chance of a finding of economic continuity was less than […] [8] Business secret. % (assuming the cost of capital estimate proposed by SEA) or less than […] [8] Business secret.
% i da bi, stoga, uložio u Airport Handling isključivo iz ekonomskih razloga.
% (assuming the cost of capital estimate proposed by Brattle), then SEA’s investment with AH was consistent with the market economy investor principle.
Najavljeno smanjenje opsega gospodarskih djelatnosti društva Airport Handling
Brattle found it reasonable to assume that given the context and in particular the notification to the Commission, a market economy investor would judge such probability to be less than […] [8] Business secret.
Italija je predložila dodatno smanjenje opsega djelatnosti koje Airport Handling trenutačno obavlja u usporedbi s onima koje je prije obavljao SEAH.
%, and would therefore invest in Airport Handling on purely economic terms.
Posebno u pogledu […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
Announced reduction of the scope of Airport Handling’s economic activities
SEA je izjavila da je spremna, najkasnije do 31. prosinca 2016., raskinuti sporazum o […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
In particular relating to […] [8] Business secret.
zaposlenika društva Airport Handling koji trenutačno […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
SEA currently provides […] [8] Business secret. , pursuant to a new and different agreement expiring on 31 December 2018.
Kao rezultat te promjene promet društva Airport Handling, koji u prvoj godini poslovanja iznosi […] [8] Poslovna tajna.
SEA declared that it was willing to terminate, by 31 December 2016 at the very latest, the agreement relating to […] [8] Business secret.
RAZLOZI ZA POKRETANJE SLUŽBENOG ISTRAŽNOG POSTUPKA
, thereby taking it away from Airport Handling, and also to hire around […] [8] Business secret.
Gospodarski kontinuitet i prijenos obveze povrata
As a result of this change, the turnover of Airport Handling, being in the order of EUR […] [8] Business secret.
Komisija je zauzela preliminarno stajalište da su ovom predmetu kriteriji koje je Sud odredio kako bi utvrdio može li za povrat potpore biti odgovoran poduzetnik koji nije prvotni korisnik potpore uglavnom ispunjeni.
in its first year of activity, would be reduced by around EUR […] [8] Business secret. .
čak i ako, u skladu sa sporazumom potpisanim s društvom SEA, SEAH-om i sindikatima 4. studenoga 2013., Airport Handling ponovno zaposli osoblje, čini se da su bivšim zaposlenicima SEAH-a zajamčena prava stečena u okviru prethodnih ugovora sa SEAH-om,
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
u skladu s informacijama koje su Komisiji bile dostupne u toj fazi SEA i Airport Handling, čak i prije isteka glavnih ugovora sa zračnim prijevoznicima, pokrenuli su zajedničke marketinške napore kako bi zračne prijevoznike koji posluju u zračnoj luci uvjerili da će SEA nastaviti pružati zemaljske usluge preko svojeg novog društva kćeri Airport Handling nakon što se dovrši likvidacija SEAH-a,
On economic continuity and transfer of the recovery obligation
opremu potrebnu za pružanje zemaljskih usluga Airport Handling unajmio bi od SEAH-a, do (moguće) prodaje te imovine trećim stranama u okviru otvorenog natječaja.
In the 2014 opening decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that in this case, the criteria identified by the Court of Justice to establish if a company other than the initial aid beneficiary can be held responsible to pay back the aid were largely fulfilled.
Komisija je smatrala da se argument Italije da bi Airport Handling unajmio tu opremu po tržišnoj cijeni može prihvatiti s obzirom na to da vrijednost predmetne imovine utvrđuje stručnjak kojeg imenuje matično društvo SEA i da moguća prodaja te imovine nije sigurna,
even if the staff would be re-employed by Airport Handling, according to the agreement signed by SEA, SEAH and the trade unions on 4 November 2013, it appeared that former employees of SEAH were being guaranteed the rights acquired under the previous contracts with SEAH,
poslovna djelatnost pružanja zemaljskih sluga ostala bi u vlasništvu istog vlasnika kao SEAH, odnosno društva SEA.
according to information available to the Commission at that stage, SEA and Airport Handling, even before the expiry of the main contracts with the airlines, had engaged in joint marketing efforts aiming to reassure airlines operating at the airport that SEA would continue the ground handling business through its new subsidiary Airport Handling after SEAH’s liquidation has been completed,
Komisija je smatrala da prijedlog Italije da se 20 % kapitala novog pružatelja zemaljskih usluga pribavi javnim natječajem nije dostatan da bi se zajamčio diskontinuitet u odnosu na SEAH zato što, prvo, prijedlog je ograničen na manjinski udjel i, drugo, zato što nisu osigurana nikakva jamstva da će se to stvarno dogoditi.
the equipment required to provide ground handling services would be leased by Airport Handling from SEAH, pending the (possible) sale of such assets to third parties in the open tender.
Osim toga, to otvaranje kapitalne strukture dogodilo bi se tek nakon što Airport Handling uđe na tržište,
The Commission considered that Italy’s argument that such assets would be leased by Airport Handling at the market price could be accepted, to the extent the value of the assets in question was assessed by an expert appointed by the parent company SEA and the eventual sale of those assets was not certain,
trenutak – nakon donošenja odluke o povratu – i ekonomska logika stvaranja novog pružatelja zemaljskih usluga upućuju na to da je plan koji je Italija prethodno dostavila zapravo mehanizam za izbjegavanje povrata.
the new ground handling business would have the same owner as SEAH, namely SEA.
Komisija je, stoga, preliminarno zaključila da se osnivanjem novog društva očito želi postići i potaknuti izbjegavanje obveze povrata potpore te da je Airport Handling sljednik SEAH-a.
The Commission considered Italy’s proposal to tender out 20 % of the capital of the new ground handling provider insufficient to guarantee discontinuity from SEAH since first, the proposal was only limited to a minority shareholding and second, no guarantees were provided that that would actually happen.
Na temelju toga Komisija je zauzela preliminarno stajalište da se Airport Handling može smatrati odgovornim za povrat potpore koja je ranije odobrena SEAH-u i koja je u odluci o povratu iz 2012. utvrđena kao nespojiva.
Moreover, this opening of the capital would only occur after the entry of Airport Handling on the market,
Dokapitalizacija
the timing — after adoption of the recovery decision — and economic logic of the creation of the new ground handling provider suggested that the plan pre-notified by Italy constitutes a mechanism to circumvent recovery.
Komisija je zauzela preliminarno stajalište da se odluke društva SEA o osnivanju društva Airport Handling i njegovoj dokapitalizaciji mogu pripisati državi.
The Commission therefore preliminarily concluded that the object and effect of the creation of the new company appeared to be the circumvention of the obligation to repay the aid and that Airport Handling was the successor of SEAH.
Prvo, Komisija je primijetila da općina Milano drži većinski udjel od 54,81 % u društvu SEA i da bi, stoga, trebalo smatrati da država ima utjecaj na postupke donošenja odluka u društvu SEA te da je uključena u odluke koje donosi to društvo.
On this basis the Commission took the preliminary view that Airport Handling could be held liable to pay back the aid granted to SEAH in the past and found incompatible in the 2012 recovery decision.
Drugo, Komisija je uputila na određene izjave predstavnika talijanskih tijela o tom pitanju zbog kojih se čini da su osnivanje društva Airport Handling organizirala ta talijanska tijela, posebno kako bi zaštitila zaposlenike u milanskim zračnim lukama.
On the capital injection
Uz to, s obzirom na to da se činilo da je SEA pod kontrolom talijanskih tijela, Komisija je donijela preliminarni zaključak da je dokapitalizacija, koju je financirala SEA, uključivala državna sredstva.
The Commission took the preliminary view that SEA’s decisions to set up Airport Handling and to inject equity into it was imputable to the State: Firstly, the Commission noted that the Municipality of Milan held a majority stake of 54,81 % in SEA and that therefore the State should be regarded as having an influence on SEA’s decision-making processes and being involved in the decisions taken by the company.
Komisija je zauzela i preliminarno stajalište da SEA nije djelovala kao ulagač u tržišnom gospodarstvu kad je dokapitalizirala Airport Handling.
Secondly, the Commission referred to certain statements made by representatives of Italian authorities in relation to the issue, which seemed to indicate that the creation of Airport Handling was orchestrated by the Italian authorities, notably in order to protect employment at Milan airports.
Prvo, Komisija je izrazila sumnju da bi privatni ulagač osigurao kapital društvu Airport Handling u trenutku u kojem je to učinila SEA jer su službe Komisije talijanska tijela već obavijestile da bi namjeravano osnivanje novog pružatelja zemaljskih usluga vjerojatno dovelo do gospodarskog kontinuiteta i time obveze novog društva da vrati potporu za koju je u odluci o povratu iz 2012. utvrđeno da je nespojiva.
In addition, since SEA appeared to be controlled by the Italian authorities, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the capital injection, which was financed by SEA, involved State resources.
Međutim, u poslovnom planu iz studenoga 2013. u obzir nije uzet rizik prijenosa obveze povrata sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling.
The Commission also took the preliminary view that SEA did not act as a market economy investor when performing the injection in Airport Handling’s capital.
Drugo, Komisija je izrazila sumnju u to je li poslovni plan na kojem se temelji odluka društva SEA o ulaganju u Airport Handling zasnovan na solidnim pretpostavkama.
Firstly, the Commission expressed doubts that a private investor would have provided capital to Airport Handling at the time when SEA did, since the Commission’s services had already informed the Italian authorities that the intended setting-up of a new ground handling provider would likely lead to economic continuity and thus liability of the new company to reimburse the aid found incompatible in the 2012 recovery decision.
Komisija je, stoga, smatrala da se čini kako se ulaganje društva SEA od 25 milijuna EUR u Airport Handling ne temelji na ekonomskim ocjenama koje se mogu usporediti s onima koje bi, u relevantnim okolnostima, razuman privatni ulagač u sličnoj situaciji izvršio prije tih ulaganja kako bi odredio buduću profitabilnost.
The business plan of November 2013 however did not take the risk of a transfer of the recovery liability from SEAH to Airport Handling into account.
Na temelju toga Komisija je zauzela preliminarno stajalište da dokapitalizacija od 25 milijuna EUR čini državnu potporu u korist društva Airport Handling.
Secondly, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the business plan underpinning SEA’s decision to invest in Airport Handling relied on sufficiently robust assumptions.
PRIMJEDBE ITALIJE
The Commission therefore considered that SEA’s investment of EUR 25 million into Airport Handling does not appear to be based on economic evaluations comparable to those which, in the relevant circumstances, a rational private investor in a similar situation would have had carried out, before making such investments, in order to determine its future profitability.
Gospodarski kontinuitet
On that basis, the Commission took the preliminary view that the EUR 25 million capital injection amounted to State aid in favour of Airport Handling.
Italija je podsjetila da je prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi cilj povrata nezakonite i nespojive državne potpore ukloniti narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja prouzročeno konkurentskom prednosti koja je dodijeljena tom nezakonitom potporom.
COMMENTS FROM ITALY
Stoga, nezakonitu potporu koja nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem mora vratiti onaj poduzetnik koji je u stvarnosti od nje ostvario korist.
On economic continuity
Obveza povrata može se proširiti na društva koja nisu prvotni korisnici potpore samo ako su ispunjeni sljedeći kumulativni uvjeti:
Italy recalled that according to settled case-law, the recovery of illegal and incompatible State aid aims to eliminate the distortion of competition caused by the competitive advantage conferred by the unlawful aid.
to je društvo osnovano kako bi nastavilo obavljati djelatnost poduzetnika korisnika i
Consequently, the unlawful and incompatible aid must be recovered from the undertaking that actually benefited from it.
to društvo zadržava stvarnu korist od konkurentske prednosti povezane s korisnikom potpore.
The recovery obligation may only be extended to companies other than the original beneficiary of the aid if the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled:
Prema mišljenju Italije u ovom se predmetu prijenos konkurentske prednosti povezane s potporom koja je dodijeljena SEAH-u odmah može isključiti.
that the company was found to continue the activity of the recipient undertaking, and
Konkretno, Italija napominje da je Komisija u uvodnim izjavama 219. i dalje svoje odluke o povratu utvrdila da navodna prednost dodijeljena SEAH-u odgovara nadoknadi gubitaka SEAH-a zabilježenih u razdoblju 2002.–2010.
that the company retains the actual benefit of the competitive advantage connected with the receipt of the aid.
Kako je Komisija navela, ti su gubitci nastali zbog visokih troškova osoblja koji čine znatan udjel u strukturi troškova pružatelja zemaljskih usluga.
In Italy’s view, in this case the transfer of the competitive advantage linked to the aid granted to SEAH can be excluded from the outset.
Budući da su dokapitalizacije koje Komisija smatra državnom pomoći prije svega služile za pokriće gubitaka nastalih zbog prekomjernih troškova osoblja SEAH-a, Italija smatra da bi se konkurentska prednost koju je SEAH ostvario ipso facto uklonila njegovom likvidacijom i izlaskom s tržišta.
In particular, Italy notes that the alleged advantage granted to SEAH was defined by the Commission in recitals 219 et seq. of its recovery decision as corresponding to the compensation of SEAH’s losses during the period 2002-2010.
Italija je napomenula i da čak i ako bi se dio, iako mali, konkurentske prednosti povezane s potporom dodijeljenom SEAH-u mogao povezati s imovinom tog društva, tj. imovinom koju je SEAH upotrebljavao za pružanje zemaljskih usluga u milanskim zračnim lukama, ta se imovina ipak neće prenijeti sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling.
As indicated by the Commission, those losses had been generated by high personnel costs, which represent a significant share of the cost structure of a ground handling provider.
Naprotiv, potonji će je privremeno unajmiti po tržišnim uvjetima do njezine prodaje na otvorenom tržištu.
Since the capital injections classified as State aid by the Commission served primarily to cover losses resulting from excessive personnel costs of SEAH, in Italy’s view the competitive advantage which SEAH benefitted from would ipso facto be removed with its liquidation and exit from the market.
Italija je, nadalje, napomenula da se, čak i ako je konkurentska prednost stvarno prenesena sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling, u ovom predmetu ne može utvrditi da Airport Handling de facto nastavlja gospodarsku djelatnost SEAH-a.
Italy also noted that even if a part — albeit small — of the competitive advantage linked to the aid granted to SEAH could be associated with the assets of the company, i.e. the assets used by SEAH to carry out its ground handling activity at Milan airports, those assets would however not be subject to transfer from SEAH to Airport Handling.
Prvo, nijedan ugovor o radu, de facto ili de jure, nije prenesen sa SEAH-a na Airport Handling.
Rather, they would be leased temporarily by the latter under market conditions pending their sale on the open market.
Prema mišljenju Italije u društvu Airport Handling zaposleno je, po znatno drukčijim uvjetima, samo osoblje koje je strogo nužno za pružanje zemaljskih usluga.
Italy further noted that, even if a transfer of competitive advantage from SEAH to Airport Handling effectively took place, it cannot be established in this case that Airport Handling de facto continues the economic activity of SEAH.
Uz to, na nove ugovore o radu primjenjuje se drukčiji režim (odjeljak o pružateljima zemaljskih usluga umjesto odjeljka o upraviteljima zračnih luka) iz nacionalnog kolektivnog ugovora o radu (Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro (CCNL)) i drukčije udruženje zaposlenika (Assohandlers umjesto Assoaeroporti).
First, no transfer, de facto or de jure, of work contracts would have taken place between SEAH and Airport Handling.
Na temelju toga Italija je istaknula da će Airport Handling ostvariti smanjenje troškova osoblja, uz znatno povećanje produktivnosti.
According to Italy, Airport Handling had only employed, under substantially new conditions, the staff strictly necessary for the performance of the ground handling activity.
Italija je dodala i da Komisijina tvrdnja iz odluke o pokretanju postupka iz 2014. da su bivšim zaposlenicima SEAH-a zajamčena prava stečena u okviru prethodnih ugovora sa SEAH-a nije potkrijepljena činjeničnim dokazima.
In addition, the new employment contracts were governed by a different regime (the Handler Section rather than the Airport operators Section of the national collective labour contract (Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro (CCNL)) and association of employees (Assohandlers instead of Assoaeroporti).
Prema mišljenju Italije u sporazumu od 4. studenoga 2013. nisu predviđena nikakva jamstva u korist bivših zaposlenika SEAH-a u pogledu stečenih prava te je jasno utvrđeno da se novi ugovori o radu trebaju temeljiti na novim uvjetima.
On that basis, Italy pointed out that Airport Handling would achieve a reduction of personnel costs, with a significant increase in productivity.
Na Airport Handling neće se prenositi ni ugovori između SEAH-a i zračnih prijevoznika koji posluju u milanskim zračnim lukama.
Italy also added that the Commission’s assertion in the 2014 opening decision that former employees of SEAH were guaranteed the rights acquired in respect of previous contracts with SEAH would not be supported by factual evidence.
Italija je navela da je nakon raskida ugovora između SEAH-a i zračnih prijevoznika Airport Handling iznova pregovarao o ugovorima sa zračnim prijevoznicima koji posluju u milanskim zračnim lukama.
According to Italy the agreement of 4 November 2013 did not provide for any guarantee to the benefit of former employees of SEAH on acquired rights, and clearly laid down the need for new employment contracts to be based on new conditions.
Uz to, prema mišljenju Italije, SEA i Airport Handling nisu pokrenuli zajedničke marketinške napore u tu svrhu, što je suprotno Komisijinim tvrdnjama iz odluke o pokretanju postupka iz 2014., koja, prema mišljenju Italije, nije potkrijepljena nikakvim činjeničnim dokazima.
Nor would there be any transfer of the contracts between SEAH and the air carriers operating at Milan airports to Airport Handling.
U svakom slučaju ta okolnost ne bi bila relevantna za ocjenu gospodarskog kontinuiteta između SEAH-a i društva Airport Handling.
According to Italy, upon the termination of contracts between SEAH and air carriers, Airport Handling negotiated ex novo the contracts with the air carriers operating at Milan airports.
U tom je pogledu Italija podsjetila da se trenutačan portfelj klijenata društva Airport Handling razlikuje od klijenata SEAH-a.
In addition, according to Italy, SEA and Airport Handling did not engage in common marketing efforts to this end, contrary to the Commission’s allegations in the 2014 opening decision which according to Italy is supported by no factual evidence.
Naime, Airport Handling sklopio je određene ugovore sa zračnim prijevoznicima koji prethodno nisu bili klijenti SEAH-a, ali istodobno nije uspio zadržati neke od bivših klijenata SEAH-a.