natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regarding the return to long-term viability of ČSA, TS criticizes the RP, stating that it lacks a clear business model [14] for the company and that several of the key assumptions of the best-case scenario are overly optimistic (fuel price, exchange rates, capacity utilisation).
V zvezi z obnovitvijo dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja ČSA TS kritizira NP, saj naj ne bi vseboval jasnega poslovnega modela [14] za družbo, številne ključne predpostavke najboljšega možnega scenarija pa naj bi bile preveč optimistične (cena goriva, menjalni tečaji, raba zmogljivosti).
TS also criticises the compensatory measures offered on the ground that they constitute mere abandonment of activities necessary to the survival of the company.
TS prav tako kritizira izravnalne ukrepe, ponujene na podlagi utemeljitve, da vključujejo le opustitev dejavnosti, potrebnih za preživetje družbe.
TS also claims that the sales of assets claimed as an own contribution were carried out and the funds spent before any restructuring process began and cannot thus be considered a real contribution to the costs of restructuring.
TS tudi trdi, da je bila prodaja sredstev, ki naj bi pomenila lastni prispevek, izvedena pred začetkom postopka prestrukturiranja in da so bila takrat porabljena tudi sredstva, zato ne more šteti kot dejanski prispevek k stroškom prestrukturiranja.
Also, TS claims that the State aid received by ČSA has enabled the expansion of its business and its subsidiaries.
TS tudi trdi, da je državna pomoč, ki jo je prejela ČSA, omogočila širitev njenega poslovanja in odvisnih družb.
Allegedly, ČSA was able to (i) expand its charter business, although ČSA was going to abandon it because it was previously loss-making, and (ii) renew its fleet, which provides ČSA with a competitive advantage hardly to be gained by any comparable competitor at a time of financial crisis.
ČSA je bila domnevno (i) zmožna razširiti svoje čarterske dejavnosti, čeprav jih je nameravala opustiti, ker so prej ustvarjale izgubo, in (ii) obnoviti svojo floto, kar ČSA zagotavlja konkurenčno prednost, ki bi jo v času finančne krize le s težavo lahko dosegel kateri koli primerljivi konkurent.
Indeed, TS claims that ČSA has used the State aid it received to expand its charter-business subsidiary HCA, which can offer flights at a price 20 % lower than the standard prices on the market [15].
TS trdi, da je ČSA pridobljeno državno pomoč uporabila za širitev čarterskih dejavnosti odvisne družbe HCA, ki lahko ponuja polete po 20 % nižji ceni od standardne cene na trgu [15].
TS also claims that ČSA raised the registered capital of HCA by CZK 162 million in May 2010.
TS tudi trdi, da je ČSA maja 2010 povečala delniški kapital HCA za 162 milijonov CZK.
Further advantages allegedly granted to ČSA consist of the possibility of operating the Prague-Tel Aviv route.
Poleg tega je ČSA domnevno prejela tudi druge ugodnosti, kot je izvajanje letov na liniji Praga–Tel Aviv.
TS argues that this possibility was apparently negotiated by the authorities of the Czech Republic exclusively for ČSA in a way circumventing legal regulations and providing ČSA with an advantage over its competitors.
TS trdi, da so češke oblasti zagotovile to možnost izključno za ČSA na način, ki je zaobšel zakonsko ureditev in ČSA zagotovil prednost pred konkurenti.
TS argues as well that, even before the creation of ČAH, a de facto concentration of Prague Airport and ČSA took place because joint management of the two companies was established.
TS trdi, da se je že pred ustanovitvijo ČAH zgodila dejanska koncentracija Letališča Praga in ČSA, saj je bilo postavljeno skupno vodstvo dveh družb.
Indeed, TS claims that the chief executive officer (CEO) of ČSA has been remunerated by Prague Airport and that cross-subsidisation of IT services provided to ČSA takes place.
TS trdi, da je glavnega izvršnega direktorja ČSA dejansko nagradilo Letališče Praga in da je vzpostavljeno navzkrižno subvencioniranje storitev IT, zagotovljenih ČSA.
Furthermore, Prague Airport then bought assets (buildings and land) from the airline which it allegedly did not need and leased them back to the airline.
Nato je Letališče Praga od letalskega prevoznika kupilo premoženje (stavbe in zemljišče), ki ga dejansko ni potrebovalo, in mu ga dalo nazaj v najem.
Such a privileged relationship between Prague Airport and ČSA resulted in preferential treatment such as price discrimination regarding airport services and access to commercially sensitive information.
Tak privilegiran odnos med Letališčem Praga in ČSA povzroča prednostno obravnavo, kot je na primer cenovna diskriminacija na področju letaliških storitev in dostopa do poslovno občutljivih informacij.
Moreover, TS argues that the creation of ČAH has a negative impact on competition due to the vertical integration between the airport and the main carrier.
Nadalje TS zatrjuje, da ustanovitev ČAH negativno vpliva na konkurenco, in sicer zaradi vertikalne integracije med letališčem in glavnim prevoznikom.
According to TS, the main reason for the creation of ČAH is to enable the granting of State aid to ČSA through the acquisition of its subsidiaries by ČAH.
Po mnenju TS je glavni razlog za ustanovitev ČAH omogočiti odobritev državne pomoči ČSA, tako da njene odvisne družbe prevzame ČAH.
COMMENTS FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES
PRIPOMBE ČEŠKE REPUBLIKE K OPAŽANJEM ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
The Czech Republic addressed in detail all of the arguments raised by third parties in their comments.
Češka republika je podrobno obravnavala vse navedbe tretjih oseb v njihovih pripombah.
In particular, as to the return to long-term viability, the Czech Republic stressed that it had updated the RP [16] and thus addressed a number of comments in the updated assumptions.
Zlasti je Češka republika v zvezi z obnovitvijo dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja poudarila, da je posodobila NP [16] in s tem odgovorila na številne pripombe v posodobljenih predpostavkah.
Furthermore, it noted that the State aid amount had decreased significantly in the course of the proceedings in view of the abandoned project for the State-aid-guaranteed purchase of an aircraft.
Nadalje je navedla, da se je znesek državne pomoči med postopkom bistveno zmanjšal zaradi prekinjenega projekta nakupa zrakoplova z zajamčeno državno pomočjo.
As regards the possible use of State aid funds for anticompetitive conduct of the charter division of ČSA, the Czech Republic stated that the charter business was already independent and separate from scheduled transport at the time when the State aid was granted.
Glede morebitne uporabe sredstev državne pomoči za protikonkurenčno ravnanje čarterskega dela ČSA je Češka republika navedla, da je bila čarterska dejavnost neodvisna in ločena od rednega prometa že ob odobritvi državne pomoči.
ČSA never made any monetary contribution to HCA's [17] registered capital.
ČSA nikoli ni zagotovila denarnega vplačila v delniški kapital HCA [17].
HCA's registered capital was increased by an in-kind contribution of a part of ČSA's business involved in the operation of charter transport.
Delniški kapital je bil povečan s stvarnim vložkom dela dejavnosti ČSA, ki vključuje čarterski prevoz.
This part of the business was evaluated by an independent expert.
Ta del dejavnosti je ocenil neodvisni strokovnjak.
As regards the alleged advantage received by ČSA for operating the Tel Aviv route, the Czech Republic explained that, although TS was chosen (pursuant to an open tender; starting from the winter flight schedule for 2011/2012) as the sole air carrier with transportation rights for ten years for the provision of agreed services on the Prague–Tel Aviv route in accordance with applicable law [18], TS received no guarantee to the effect that no other carrier would be authorised to operate the route for the duration of that term.
Glede domnevne prednosti, ki naj bi jo imela ČSA pri opravljanju letov na liniji Tel Aviv, je Češka republika pojasnila, da čeprav je bil TS (na odprtem razpisu, z začetkom v zimski sezoni 2011/2012) izbran kot edini letalski prevoznik s pravicami prevoza za deset let za opravljanje dogovorjenih storitev na liniji Praga–Tel Aviv v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo [18], ni prejel nobenega zagotovila, da noben drug prevoznik v tem času ne bo pooblaščen za opravljanje prevozov na liniji.
The Czech authorities stated that it was a general policy of the Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic not to maintain existing restrictions but, on the contrary, to expand the opportunities for air carriers in terms of market access in order to liberalise the markets for air transport services.
Češke oblasti so navedle, da Ministrstvo za promet Češke republike v skladu s svojo splošno politiko ni ohranjalo obstoječih omejitev, ampak je nasprotno širilo priložnosti za letalske prevoznike v smislu dostopa do trga z namenom liberalizacije trgov za storitve zračnega prometa.
As regards the opening of the Prague–Abu Dhabi route, the Czech Republic explained that this route was not operated by ČSA on its own but as a code-share flight [19] operated in cooperation with Etihad Airways.
Češka republika je glede uvedbe linije Praga–Abu Dhabi pojasnila, da prevozov na tej liniji ne opravlja ČSA sama, ampak leti pod skupno oznako [19] v sodelovanju z Etihad Airways.
The route focused on transfer passengers who could use many different connecting long-distance flights from Abu Dhabi operated by Etihad Airways.
Linija je osredotočena na tranzitne potnike, ki bi lahko uporabljali številne različne povezovalne linije na velike razdalje iz Abu Dhabija, na katerih leti Etihad Airways.
This cooperation thus improved ČSA's sales options and contributed to the restoration of its long-term viability at very low additional costs.
To sodelovanje je pripomoglo k izboljšanju prodajnih možnosti ČSA in prispevalo k obnovitvi njene dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja ob zelo nizkih dodatnih stroških.
The sale and lease-back of the APC office building was, according to the Czech Republic, a standard market practice which enabled the seller to obtain liquid funds, while the purchaser obtained a stable source of future rental income.
Prodaja in povratni najem poslovne stavbe APC je bila po trditvah Češke republike običajna tržna praksa, ki je prodajalcu omogočila pridobitev likvidnih sredstev, kupcu pa zanesljiv vir prihodkov iz naslova najema v prihodnosti.
Moreover, the land sold was of strategic importance in view of the construction of a new runway that was to be built at Prague Airport.
Poleg tega je bila prodana zemlja strateško pomembna z vidika izgradnje nove vzletno-pristajalne steze, ki naj bi bila zgrajena na Letališču Praga.
For this reason Prague Airport was interested in purchasing the property.
Zato se je Letališče Praga zanimalo za nakup premoženja.
Also, according to the Act on the Ownership of Prague-Ruzyně Airport [20], Prague Airport, including any adjacent or related land, could only be owned by the Czech Republic or a legal entity domiciled in the Czech Republic and wholly owned by the State.
Prav tako lahko ima v skladu z zakonom o lastništvu letališča Praga-Ruzyně [20] Letališče Praga, vključno z vsemi sosednjimi in povezanimi zemljišči, v lasti le Češka republika ali pravni subjekt s sedežem v Češki republiki, ki je v stoodstotni lasti države.
This requirement limited the number of suitable purchasers to fully State-owned companies only.
Ta zahteva je omejila število primernih kupcev le na družbe v stoodstotni lasti države.
The operator of Prague Airport was such an entity and had, moreover, a strategic interest in acquiring the land.
Tak subjekt je bil upravljavec Letališča Praga, ki je imel poleg tega tudi strateški interes za pridobitev zemljišča
The Czech Republic repeatedly stated that the commercial relations between ČSA and Prague Airport were and always had been in accordance with national and Union law (see recitals 61-64).
Češka republika je večkrat ponovila, da so poslovni odnosi med ČSA in Letališčem Praga vedno bili skladni z nacionalnimi zakoni in zakoni Unije (glej uvodne izjave 61–64).
As regards ČAH, the Czech Republic explained that, pursuant to Government resolution No 848 of 24 November 2010, ČAH did not represent permanent vertical integration of infrastructure and air carriers but merely a merger (between ČSA and Prague Airport) of limited duration and function, the objective of which was to sell ČSA and its subsidiaries on the best terms possible.
V zvezi s ČAH je Češka republika pojasnila, da v skladu s Sklepom vlade št. 848 z dne 24. novembra 2010 ČAH ni pomenil trajne vertikalne integracije infrastrukture in letalskih prevoznikov, ampak le združitev (med ČSA in Letališčem Praga) omejenega trajanja in funkcije, katere cilj je bil prodati ČSA in njene odvisne družbe pod najboljšimi mogočimi pogoji.
Finally, as regards the comments presented by the civic association Pro Hanspaulku, the Czech Republic commented that the civic association had not proved the existence of legitimate interest nor could such an interest be inferred from the objection submitted which related to completion of a new runway at Prague Airport which was allegedly to be used primarily by the restructured ČSA.
Nazadnje Češka republika v zvezi s pripombami, ki jih je predložilo civilno združenje Pro Hanspaulku, meni, da civilno združenje ni dokazalo obstoja legitimnega interesa, niti ni mogoče takega interesa izluščiti iz predloženih pripomb, ki so se nanašale na dokončanje nove vzletno-pristajalne steze na Letališču Praga, ki naj bi jo uporabljala zlasti prestrukturirana družba ČSA.
To this, the Czech Republic answered that, in compliance with the RP, the presence of ČSA at Prague Airport would actually be reduced and thus the comments submitted by the civic association were not founded.
Češka republika je na to odgovorila, da bi bila prisotnost ČSA v skladu z NP dejansko zmanjšana, zaradi česar pripombe civilnega združenja niso bile utemeljene.
By virtue of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threaten to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, shall, in so far as it affects trade between the Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli pomoč 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.
The concept of State aid applies to any advantage granted directly or indirectly, financed out of State resources, granted by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it [21].
Koncept državne pomoči velja za vsako prednost, odobreno neposredno ali posredno, ki se financira iz državnih virov, ki jih odobri država sama ali prek posredniškega organa, ki deluje na podlagi dodeljenih pooblastil [21].
In this context, the notified capital injection in the form of the debt-for-equity swap of the Osinek loan has to be seen as State aid.
V tem okviru priglašena kapitalska injekcija v obliki zamenjave terjatev v lastniške deleže posojila Osinek vsekakor pomeni državno pomoč.
The capital injection involves State resources and constitutes a selective advantage to ČSA, since it improves its financial situation.
Kapitalska injekcija vključuje državna sredstva in pomeni selektivno prednost za ČSA, saj izboljšuje njen finančni položaj.
According to the case law of the Court of Justice, aid to an undertaking is deemed to affect trade between Member States where that undertaking operates in a market open to trade at Union level [22].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča šteje, da pomoč podjetju vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, v katerih podjetje deluje na trgu, odprtem za trgovanje na ravni EU [22].
The mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking is strengthened compared with other competing undertakings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would not otherwise have received in its normal course of business, points to a possible distortion of competition [23].
Že samo dejstvo, da je konkurenčni položaj nekega podjetja okrepljen v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji, ker je prejelo gospodarsko korist, ki je ne bi imelo v okviru svojega običajnega poslovanja, kaže morebitno izkrivljanje konkurence [23].
Therefore, aid granted by a Member State to an undertaking may help to maintain or increase domestic activity, with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of penetrating the market of the Member State concerned [24].
Zato lahko pomoč, ki jo država članica dodeli podjetju, prispeva k ohranjanju ali povečevanju domačih dejavnosti, zaradi česar imajo podjetja, ustanovljena v drugih državah članicah, manj možnosti, da se prebijejo na trg zadevne države članice [24].
The measure at hand affects trade between Member States and competition as ČSA 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. The measure in question enables ČSA to continue operating so that it does not have to face the consequences usually deriving from its poor financial results and therefore it distorts competition.
Zadevni ukrep vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in konkurenčnost, saj ČSA konkurira drugim letalskim prevoznikom Unije, zlasti od uvedbe tretje faze liberalizacije zračnega prometa („tretji paket“) 1. januarja 1993 Zadevni ukrep omogoča ČSA, da nadaljuje poslovanje in se tako izogne posledicam, ki bi navadno nastale zaradi slabih finančnih rezultatov, s čimer izkrivlja konkurenco.
Therefore, the notified capital injection in the form of the debt-for-equity swap constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
V tem okviru priglašena kapitalska injekcija v obliki zamenjave terjatev v lastniške deleže posojila Osinek pomeni državno pomoč v skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU.
This conclusion is not disputed by the Czech authorities.
Te ugotovitve češke oblasti ne izpodbijajo.
LEGALITY OF THE AID
ZAKONITOST POMOČI
Article 108(3) of the TFEU provides that a Member State shall not put an aid measure into effect before the Commission has adopted a decision authorising the measure.
V skladu s členom 108(3) PDEU države članice ne uvedejo ukrepa pomoči, dokler Komisija ne sprejme odločbe, s katero potrdi ukrep.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET UNDER THE R&R GUIDELINES
ZDRUŽLJIVOST DRŽAVNE POMOČI Z NOTRANJIM TRGOM PO SMERNICAH ZA REŠEVANJE IN PRESTRUKTURIRANJE
Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU lays down that aid can be authorised where it is granted to promote the development of certain economic sectors and where this aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Člen 107(3)(c) PDEU določa, da se državna pomoč lahko odobri za spodbujanje razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih sektorjev, kadar taka pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
The Commission considers that the present measure constitutes restructuring aid which must be assessed in the light of the criteria under the R&R Guidelines in order to establish whether it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) of the TFEU.
Komisija meni, da sedanji ukrep pomeni pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki jo je treba ocenjevati v luči meril iz smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, da bi tako ugotovili, ali je skladna z notranjim trgom v skladu s členom 107(3) PDEU.
Regarding eligibility, point 33 of the R&R Guidelines states that the firm must qualify as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of points 9 to 13 of those Guidelines.
Glede upravičenosti točka 33 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje določa, da mora podjetje šteti kot podjetje v težavah v skladu s točkami od 9 do 13 teh smernic.
Firm in difficulty
Družba v težavah
According to point 9 of the R&R Guidelines the Commission regards a firm as being in difficulty when it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owners/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business in the short or medium term.
V skladu s točko 9 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje Komisija meni, da je podjetje v težavah tedaj, ko z lastnimi finančnimi sredstvi ali zunanjimi sredstvi, pridobljenimi od lastnikov/delničarjev ali upnikov, brez posredovanja države ni zmožno omejiti izgub, ki bi podjetje kratko- ali srednjeročno gotovo pripeljale do propada.
Subsequently, point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines clarifies that a limited liability company is regarded as being in difficulty where more than a half of its registered capital has disappeared and more than one quarter of that capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months.
Nadalje, točka 10(a) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje pojasnjuje, da je družba z omejeno odgovornostjo v težavah tedaj, ko je izginila več kot polovica njenega delniškega kapitala, od česar je več kot četrtino kapitala izgubila v zadnjih 12 mesecih.
The Czech authorities claim that ČSA, a joint-stock company under Czech law and therefore a limited liability company in terms of point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines, entered into serious difficulties as of August 2009 when the financial crisis severely impacted even the high season – the summer flight schedule.
Češke oblasti menijo, da se je ČSA, delniška družba po češki zakonodaji in zato družba z omejeno odgovornostjo v smislu točke 10(a) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, v resnih težavah znašla avgusta 2009, ko se je vpliv finančne krize močno čutil tudi v visoki sezoni – poletni vozni red letov.
At the time, operating cash flow sunk to CZK [– 2,4 – – 2,1] billion, which had a dramatic impact on the company’s assets.
Takrat se je denarni tok pri poslovanju zmanjšal na [– 2,4 – – 2,1] milijarde CZK, kar je močno vplivalo na premoženje družbe.
Indeed, in August 2009 the company fulfilled the conditions of point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines.
Dejansko je družba avgusta 2009 izpolnila pogoje iz točke 10(a) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
The total registered capital of ČSA amounted to CZK 2735 million.
Celotni delniški kapital ČSA je znašal 2735 milijonov CZK.
Hence, the company was indeed a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines at the time of granting of the restructuring aid in June 2010.
Tako je bila dejansko podjetje v težavah v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje v času odobravanja pomoči za prestrukturiranje junija 2010.
Newly created firm
Novoustanovljeno podjetje
Point 12 of the R&R Guidelines states that a newly created firm is not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid even if its initial financial position is unsecure.
Točka 12 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje določa, da novoustanovljeno podjetje ni upravičeno do pomoči za prestrukturiranje, čeprav je njegov prvotni finančni položaj negotov.
A firm is in principle considered to be newly created for the first three years following the start of operations in the relevant field of activity.
Podjetje načeloma velja za novoustanovljeno prva tri leta po začetku poslovanja na zadevnem področju.
ČSA was created in 1923 and cannot therefore be considered a newly created firm.
ČSA je bila ustanovljena leta 1923 in zato ne more šteti kot novoustanovljeno podjetje.