natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In fact, Hungary's reaction to the opening decision does neither contain new elements in support of the non-aid character of the measures nor information substantiating the compatibility of the implemented measures with the internal market, in particular with the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines.
Pripombe Madžarske o sklepu o začetku postopka ne vsebujejo nobenih novih elementov, ki bi podpirali trditev, da ukrepi niso pomoč ali informacij, ki bi dokazovale združljivost izvedenih ukrepov z notranjim trgom, zlasti s Smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
Two competitors submitted comments (see paragraph (10) above), both supporting the Commission's investigation:
Pripombe sta predložila dva konkurenta (glej uvodno izjavo (10) zgoraj) in oba sta podprla preiskavo Komisije.
The competitor requesting for its identity not to be disclosed alleged that some private investors were interested in acquiring a controlling stake in Malév which demonstrates that there were viable options available for Hungary as an alternative to the 2010 renationalisation of Malév.
Konkurent, ki je zahteval, da se njegova identiteta ne razkrije, je trdil, da se je nekaj zasebnih vlagateljev zanimalo za pridobitev nadzornega deleža v družbi Malév, kar dokazuje, da je Madžarska poleg ponovne nacionalizacije družbe Malév v letu 2010 imela tudi druge izvedljive možnosti.
Wizz Air evaluated the aggregated market value of the assets which had been transferred to MAVA along with the MFB loan (measure 1), including the Malév trademark, a kerosene pipeline and one B767 aircraft, as not more than EUR 27 million which is substantially lower than the amount of the loan.
Wizz Air je skupno tržno vrednost sredstev, ki so bila na družbo MAVA prenesena skupaj s posojilom MFB (ukrep 1), vključno z blagovno znamko Malév, cevovodom za transport kerozina in enim zrakoplovom B767, ocenil na največ 27 milijonov EUR, kar je znatno nižje od zneska posojila.
Therefore, Wizz Air concluded that this transaction was not done on an arm's length basis and conferred a significant advantage to Malév.
Zato Wizz Air ugotavlja, da ta transakcija ni bila opravljena po tržnih načelih in da je družba Malév pridobila znatno prednost.
As to the tax deferral (measure 3), Wizz Air alleged that under Hungarian law a private undertaking in a financial situation similar to that of Malév could neither automatically nor as a matter of exception be granted a similar tax deferral such as the one at hand.
V zvezi z odlogom plačila davkov (ukrep 3) je Wizz Air trdil, da v skladu z madžarsko zakonodajo nobenemu zasebnemu podjetju v finančnem položaju, podobnem položaju družbe Malév, ne bi bil samodejno ali izjemoma odobren tak odlog plačila davkov.
HUNGARY'S COMMENTS TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES
PRIPOMBE MADŽARSKE O UGOTOVITVAH ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
After an extension of deadline to reply, Hungary reacted on these comments on 5 September 2011.
Po tem, ko je Komisija rok za odgovor podaljšala, je Madžarska na te pripombe odgovorila 5. septembra 2011.
Hungary maintains its position that the past measures are justified by the Market Economy Investor Principle test (see paragraph 59 below) and therefore do not constitute State aid.
Madžarska vztraja pri svojem stališču, da pretekle ukrepe upravičuje preskus načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu (glej uvodno izjavo (59) spodaj) in zato ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
According to Hungary, the existence of public policy objectives does not affect the non-aid character of the measures.
Madžarska meni, da obstoj ciljev javne politike ne vpliva na to, da ukrepi niso pomoč.
Hungary stated that there were no viable options and that only the renationalisation permitted the Hungarian authorities to regain full operational control over Malév, allowing the national flag carrier to actually implement the restructuring procedure that it had pursued since 2007 in order to ensure commercial success of the company.
Madžarska je navedla, da ni bilo izvedljivih možnosti in da je samo ponovna nacionalizacija madžarskim organom omogočila, da so spet pridobili popoln operativni nadzor družbe Malév in da je državni prevoznik lahko dejansko izvedel postopek prestrukturiranja, ki ga je z namenom zagotoviti poslovni uspeh družbe, izvajal že od leta 2007.
As to measure 1, Hungary took the view that the value of the assets in question corresponded to the value of the loan.
V zvezi z ukrepom 1 je Madžarska menila, da je vrednost zadevnih sredstev ustrezala vrednosti posojila.
As to measure 3, Hungary stated that the Hungarian tax authorities treated Malév as any other tax payer in a similar situation.
V zvezi z ukrepom 3 je Madžarska navedla, da so madžarski davčni organi družbo Malév obravnavali tako, kot vsakega drugega davčnega zavezanca v podobnem položaju.
PRESENCE OF AID IN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU
OBSTOJ DRŽAVNE POMOČI V SMISLU ČLENA 107(1) PDEU
In order to ascertain whether the measures under scrutiny constitute State aid, the Commission has to assess whether they fulfil the cumulative conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Da bi ugotovila, ali proučevani ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč, mora Komisija oceniti, ali izpolnjujejo kumulativne pogoje člena 107(1) PDEU.
This provision states that "[s]ave as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market".
Ta člen določa, da „[R]azen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
In the light of this provision, the Commission will assess whether the contested measures in favour of Malév constitute State aid.
Na podlagi te določbe bo Komisija tu ocenila, ali sporni ukrepi v korist družbe Malév pomenijo državno pomoč.
With regard to the cumulative criteria of State aid, in the current case, affectation of trade and distortion of competition are indisputable and were not even debated by the Hungarian authorities.
Kar zadeva kumulativna merila državne pomoči, sta vpliv na trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence nesporna in madžarski organi o tem sploh niso razpravljali.
Malév is in competition with other European Union airlines, in particular since the entry into force of the third stage of liberalisation of air transport ("third package") on 1 January 1993 [14].The measures in question enabled Malév to continue operating so it did not have to face, as other competitors, the consequences normally deriving from its poor financial results.
Družba Malév je konkurent drugim letalskim družbam Evropske unije, zlasti od uvedbe tretje faze liberalizacije zračnega prometa („tretji paket“) 1. januarja 1993 [14]. Zadevni ukrepi so družbi Malév omogočili nadaljnje poslovanje, ne da bi se ji bilo treba, tako kot drugi konkurenti, soočati s posledicami, ki običajno izhajajo iz slabih finančnih rezultatov.
As regards State resources and imputability of the measures, this has not been disputed by Hungary either.
Madžarska tudi ni oporekala dejstvu, da so bili ukrepi financirani iz državnih sredstvev ali s sredstvi, ki jih je mogoče pripisati državi.
APEH is the Hungarian Tax Authority and as such clearly imputable to the State.
APEH je madžarski davčni organ in ga je kot takega mogoče jasno pripisati državi.
MNV is the State Holding Company.
MNV je državni holding.
Its duties are set out in the most important framework rules of the State Assets Act.
Njegove naloge so določene v najpomembnejših okvirnih pravilih zakona o državnih sredstvih.
MNV executes the government's and the competent minister's decisions.
MNV izvršuje sklepe vlade in pristojnega ministra.
With regard to MAVA, it is also 100 % State-owned (via MNV) and – as the Hungarian authorities explain – represents an "emanation of the Hungarian State".
Tudi MAVA je prek MNV v 100-odstotni državni lasti in, kot pojasnjujejo madžarski organi, predstavlja „podaljšanje madžarske države“.
Concerning selectivity, with the exception of measure 3 (the tax deferral) this was not disputed by Hungary.
Madžarska tudi ni oporekala glede selektivnosti, razen ukrepa 3 (odlog plačila davkov).
The measures were to favour a single company, Malév.
Ukrepi so dajali prednosti eni sami družbi – družbi Malév.
Whether an economic advantage in favour of Malév is present in the measures under scrutiny will be assessed hereunder.
V nadaljevanju bo ocenjeno, ali je v proučevanih ukrepih prisotna gospodarska ugodnost za družbo Malév.
Hereto, the Commission notes that according to well-established principles of Community law, if additional capital is made available to an 'undertaking' on conditions better than normal market conditions this could fall within the remit of Article 107(1) TFEU as it would result in 'favouring' the particular undertaking within the meaning of this Article.
Komisija ugotavlja, da v skladu z dobro uveljavljenimi načeli prava skupnosti, če se „podjetju“ zagotovi dodatni kapital pod pogoji, boljšimi od običajnih tržnih pogojev, to lahko sodi na področje člena 107(1) PDEU, ker bi povzročilo „dajanje prednosti“ posameznemu podjetju v smislu navedenega člena.
In order to determine whether such advantage is granted, the Commission applies the 'Market Economy Investor Principle'.
Komisija pri ugotavljanju, ali je bila taka prednost dana, uporablja „načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu“.
According to this principle, where, in similar circumstances, 'a private investor operating in normal market conditions of a market economy of a comparable size to that of the bodies operating in the public sector could have been prompted to make the capital contribution in question', no State Aid would be involved.
V skladu s tem načelom velja, da če bi se v podobnih okoliščinah „zasebni vlagatelj, ki deluje v običajnih tržnih pogojih tržnega gospodarstva, ki bi se po velikosti lahko primerjal z organi, ki upravljajo javni sektor, odločil za zadevne kapitalske vložke“’, ni državne pomoči.
The Commission must therefore assess 'whether a private investor would have entered into the transaction in question on the same terms' [15].
Zato mora Komisija oceniti, „ali bi zasebni vlagatelj zadevno transakcijo izvedel pod enakimi pogoji [15]“.
The attitude of the hypothetical private investor is that of a prudent investor [16] whose goal of profit maximisation is tempered with caution about the level of risk acceptable for a given rate of return. [17]
Hipotetični zasebni vlagatelj deluje kot preudaren vlagatelj [16], ki želi svoje dobičke povečati, ne da bi pri tem prevzel prevelika tveganja za svoj dobiček [17].
According to the jurisprudence of the European Courts, although the conduct of a private investor with which the intervention of the public investor pursuing economic policy aims must be compared need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realizing a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the conduct of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy - whether general or sectoral - and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term [18].
V skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča se zasebni vlagatelj, čigar udeležbo je treba primerjati z javnim vlagateljem, ki sledi ciljem ekonomske politike, ne obnaša nujno kot običajni vlagatelj, ki vlaga kapital, da bi si v dokaj kratkem času zagotovil donos, ampak najmanj kot zasebni holding ali skupina zasebnih podjetij, ki vodi strukturno politiko – globalno ali sektorsko – ter ga usmerjajo možnosti dolgoročnejše donosnosti [18].
Moreover, '… [T]he comparison between the conduct of public and private investors must be made by reference to the attitude which a private investor would have had at the time of the transaction in question, having regard to the available information and foreseeable developments at that time' [19].
Poleg tega je treba „[R]ravnanje javnih in zasebnih vlagateljev primerjati glede na to, kako bi v času sporne transakcije ob upoštevanju podatkov, ki so bili na voljo, in v tistem trenutku predvidljivega razvoja ravnal zasebni vlagatelj“ [19].
The Commission's analysis and assessment must include 'all factors that are relevant to the transaction at issue and its context'.
Analiza in ocena Komisije mora vključevati „vse upoštevne elemente in ozadje sporne transakcije“.
This will include the financial situation of the beneficiary undertaking and the relevant market.
To vključuje finančni položaj podjetja, ki je prejemnik pomoči, in zadevni trg.
Based on the abovementioned considerations, the main issue that the Commission wishes to explore is whether the undertaking received 'an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions' [20].
Glede na zgoraj navedene premisleke je glavno vprašanje, ki ga Komisija želi raziskati, ali je podjetje pridobilo „gospodarsko ugodnost, ki je v običajnih tržnih razmerah ne bi“ [20].
The Commission also notes that according to established case law, the MEIP is also applicable to loans.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da se v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso tudi za posojila uporablja načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
When applied to the grant of a loan, this principle invites the question whether a private investor would have granted the loan to the beneficiary on the terms on which it was actually granted [21].
Ko se to načelo uporabi za odobritev posojila, se zastavi vprašanje, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj prejemniku odobril posojilo pod pogoji, pod katerimi je bilo posojilo dejansko odobreno [21].
Assessment of the totality of measures
Ocena celote ukrepov
As already set out in the opening decision, the BP Chemicals judgement [22] is relevant for the assessment of the case at hand.
Kot je določeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, je za oceno obravnavanega primera pomembna sodba v zadevi BP Chemicals [22].
In fact, the Commission considers that the measures are not autonomous and are linked through their chronology, the financial situation of Malév and their finality as they all aim at keeping the airline afloat and solving its liquidity needs and undercapitalisation due to its losses.
Komisija dejansko meni, da ukrepi niso avtonomni, ampak so povezani prek kronologije, finančnega položaja družbe Malév in dokončnosti, ker je cilj vseh ukrepov, da letalski družbi pomagajo preživeti in rešiti njene likvidnostne potrebe in podkapitaliziranost, ki so nastale zaradi izgub.
In fact, Hungary also argues in its comments to the opening decision that the different steps of the "process" are "inseparable" and all measures were intended to pursue one objective, namely to ensure the airline's operation by finding a strategical investor.
Madžarska v svojih pripombah na sklep o začetku postopka trdi, da so različni koraki „procesa“„neločljivi“ in da je bil cilj vseh ukrepov en sam in sicer najti strateškega vlagatelja in s tem zagotoviti poslovanje letalske družbe.
From the submissions of Hungary it has become clear that the measures implemented by Hungary in favour of Malév are motivated by public policy considerations and not based on consideration about the future profitability of the company.
Na podlagi predloženih stališč Madžarske je jasno, da je Madžarska ukrepe v korist družbe Malév izvedla zaradi javno-političnih premislekov in ne zaradi razmišljanja o prihodnji donosnosti družbe.
Hungary underlined at several occasions the failure of the privatisation and Malév's importance for the national economy.
Madžarska je večkrat poudarila neuspešno privatizacijo in pomen družbe Malév za nacionalno gospodarstvo.
It was acknowledged that, when undertaking the measures, the State took into consideration the "airline's role for the national infrastructure, labour market and the suppliers' interest".
Potrjeno je bilo, da je država pri sprejemanju ukrepov upoštevala „pomen letalske družbe za nacionalno infrastrukturo, trg dela in interese dobaviteljev“.
The Hungarian authorities also highlighted that there is no private investor which would be willing to take over the airline in its current form.
Madžarski organi so tudi poudarili, da noben zasebni vlagatelj ne bi bil pripravljen prevzeti letalske družbe v njeni sedanji obliki.
Therefore, the Commission has to assume that no private investor would have acted like the Hungarian government in similar circumstances when undertaking the measures.
Zato mora Komisija domnevati, da noben zasebni vlagatelj v podobnih okoliščinah ne bi ravnal tako, kot je ravnala madžarska vlada pri sprejemanju ukrepov.
Hereto, the Commission also recalls that in the Boch judgement the Court indicated that “the test is, in particular, whether in similar circumstances a private shareholder, having regard to the foreseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional policy and sectoral consideration would have subscribed the capital in question” [23].
Komisija tudi opozarja, da je Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Boch navedlo, da „je preizkus zlasti, ali bi v podobnih okoliščinah zasebni vlagatelj na podlagi predvidljivih možnosti donosa ter ne glede na socialne dejavnike, dejavnike regionalne politike in sektorsko problematiko vpisal zadevni kapital“ [23].
In the light of Malév's bad financial results over a long time period (see Table 1 and points (103)-(104) below) and the Hungarian authorities claim that the airline has been in a permanent difficulty at least since 2006, a return acceptable to a private investor could have be expected only if the company had undergone a drastic restructuring.
Ob upoštevanju, da so bili finančni rezultati družbe Malév v daljšem časovnem obdobju slabi (glej Preglednico 1 in uvodni izjavi (103)-(104) spodaj), in trditve madžarskih organov, da je bila letalska družba v stalnih težavah vsaj od leta 2006, bi bilo donosnost, sprejemljivo za zasebnega vlagatelja, mogoče pričakovati le, če bi se družba temeljito prestrukturirala.
However, neither Hungary nor Malév ever demonstrated that such a restructuring plan was at the basis of any of the measures under examination.
Vendar Madžarska in družba Malév nista nikoli predložili dokazov, da je bil tak načrt za prestrukturiranje podlaga za katerega od obravnavanih ukrepov.
On the basis of the above the Commission considers that measures 1-8 taken together do not comply with the MEIP.
Glede na navedeno Komisija meni, da ukrepi 1–8 skupaj niso skladni z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
This assessment is further confirmed by an individual analysis of each measure.
To oceno nadalje potrjuje še posamična analiza vsakega ukrepa.
Assessment of measures 1-8 individually
Ocena posameznih ukrepov 1–8
According to Hungary, MAVA's activities are limited to a one-time function, i.e. holding certain assets formerly owned by Malév and acting as a "conduit for certain payments between Malév and MFB".
Po mnenju Madžarske so dejavnosti družbe MAVA omejene na enkratno dejavnost, t.j. razpolaganje z nekaterimi sredstvi, ki so bile prej v lasti družbe Malév in opravljanje funkcije „posrednika za nekatera plačila med družbo Malév in MFB“.
MAVA is created only for this very purpose.
Družba MAVA je ustanovljena samo za ta namen.
With regard to debt amounting to EUR 76 million transferred to MAVA, this originates in a 2003 loan agreement between Malév and MFB.
Dolg v višini 76 milijonov EUR, ki je bil prenesen na družbo MAVA, izhaja iz posojilne pogodbe med družbo Malév in MFB iz leta 2003.
The loan was to be repaid in one single instalment at the end of the maturity and covered by a State guarantee.
Posojilo, krito z državnim poroštvom, bi moralo biti odplačano v enem obroku ob zapadlosti.
This 2003 loan was included in the list of existing aid measures of the Accession Treaty [24].
To posojilo iz leta 2003 je bilo vključeno na seznam obstoječih ukrepov državne pomoči pogodbe o pristopu [24].
Indeed, the prolongation of an aid measure constitutes a new aid scheme as set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [25].
Podaljšanje veljavnosti ukrepa pomoči predstavlja novo shemo pomoči v skladu s členom 4(2)(b) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [25].
The investigation has shown that this transaction (i.e. prolongation of the maturity of the debt, creation of MAVA, transfer of the debt to MAVA, transfer of the assets to MAVA and the lease back agreements) solely aimed at restructuring Malév's debt.
Preiskava je pokazala, da je bila transakcija (t.j. podaljšanje zapadlosti dolga, ustanovitev družbe MAVA, prenos dolga na družbo MAVA, prenos sredstev na družbo MAVA in pogodbe o ponovnem zakupu) namenjena zgolj prestrukturiranju dolga družbe Malév.
Hungary admitted itself that MAVA was never intended to make profit.
Madžarska je sama priznala, da namen družbe MAVA ni bil nikoli ustvarjanje dobička.
As a result of this transaction, the debt (together with the assets) was taken off the Malév's balance sheet.
Zaradi te transakcije je bil dolg (skupaj s sredstvi) umaknjen iz bilance stanja družbe Malév.
Hungary's argument that the financial obligations undertaken by Malév and AirBridge were sufficient to cover MAVA's costs, is not acceptable to demonstrate that the transaction is market conform, as no private market actor would have had the incentive to act in the same way.
Trditev Madžarske, da so finančne obveznosti, ki sta jih prevzeli družbi Malév in AirBridge, zadostovale za kritje stroškov družbe MAVA, ni mogoče sprejeti kot dokazilo, da je transakcija skladna s trgom, ker noben zasebni vlagatelj ne bi imel spodbude za enako ravnanje.
Although the Hungarian authorities have provided fairly comprehensible evaluations [27] for the B767 aircraft [28] and the kerosene pipeline [29], the evaluation provided (discounted cash-flow method) for the Malév brand (EUR 56 million) seems to be circular and highly dependent on the airline performance so that its result cannot be taken as the objective value of the Malév brand, especially considering the airline's state and performance.
Čeprav so madžarski organi predložili dokaj razumljiva ovrednotenja [27] za zrakoplov B767 [28] in cevovod za transport kerozina [29], se vrednotenje, predloženo (metoda diskontiranega denarnega toka) za znamko Malév (56 milijonov EUR), zdi krožno in zelo odvisno od uspešnosti letalske družbe in zato se ne more šteti za objektivno vrednost znamke Malév, zlasti ob upoštevanju stanja in uspešnosti letalske družbe.
Given the fact that the State was aware of the probability that Malév would be not able to fulfil its royalty payment obligations, the discounted cash-flow method should have resulted in a value as low as zero.
Ob dejstvu, da je bila država seznanjena, da družba Malév verjetno ne bo sposobna izpolniti obveznosti glede plačevanja licenčnine, bi morala biti po metodi diskontiranega denarnega toka vrednost nič.
Under this specific contractual structure, the value of the brand cannot thus be accepted as sufficient collateral.
Po tej posebni pogodbeni strukturi torej vrednost znamke ne more biti sprejeta kot zadostno zavarovanje.
The contracting parties must have been aware that Malév, as a firm in difficulties already in 2007, was not realistically able to fulfil its royalty payment obligation sufficiently.
Pogodbene stranke so se zagotovo zavedale, da družba Malév, ki je bilo podjetje v težavah že v letu 2007, v resnici ni bila sposobna zadovoljivo izpolnjevati svojih obveznosti glede plačevanja licenčnine.
In fact, in the aftermath of this transaction, MAVA's "costs" (i.e. the interest payment to MFB) could not be covered by Malév's royalty payments for the trademark.
Po transakciji „stroškov“ družbe MAVA (tj. plačilo obresti MFB) ni bilo mogoče kriti s plačili licenčnin družbe Malév za blagovno znamko.
MAVA has never taken any steps to enforce the outstanding payments.
Družba MAVA ni nikoli sprejela nobenega ukrepa za izterjavo neporavnanih plačil.