natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
These orders were executed by Latvijas Krājbanka days after.
Komisija je 18. julija 2012 prejela dodatno pritožbo (glej uvodno izjavo 7) v zvezi z obveznostjo vlagateljev iz člena 7.4 sporazuma, da vse terjatve, ki izhajajo iz sindiciranega posojila 2, odstopijo državi ali njeni imenovani družbi in jih nanjo prenesejo za samo 1 LVL (glej uvodno izjavo 28).
In particular, the operations at stake were two payments of USD […] million to IATA Clearing House and of EUR […] million to Riga International Airport executed on 25 November 2011, and a transfer of EUR […] million to an alternative bank account of airBaltic in Swedbank on 30 November 2011.
Pritožnik trdi, da se je latvijska država v dopisih z dne 9. februarja 2012 in 12. junija 2012 odločila, da se terjatev do družbe airBaltic v višini 5 milijonov EUR za sindicirano posojilo 2, tj. del, ki ga je odobrila družba Taurus, od skupnega zneska 35 milijonov EUR, odstopi družbi airBaltic za 1 LVL (ukrep 6).
The ‘reShape’ plan of March 2012
SKLEP O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
In March 2012, airBaltic adopted a plan entitled ‘reShape’.
Komisija se je 20. novembra 2012 odločila, da začne formalni postopek preiskave.
It foresees a number of measures, including the purchase of more efficient planes [21] and the closure of certain routes, which would allow the company to break-even in 2014 in the realistic and optimistic scenarios.
V svojem sklepu o začetku postopka je izrazila predhodno stališče, da bi bilo mogoče družbo airBaltic šteti za podjetje v težavah, ko so bili dodeljeni opredeljeni ukrepi.
However, in the pessimistic scenario, airBaltic would have negative EBIT until at least 2016.
Izrazila je tudi dvome glede šestih obravnavanih ukrepov in predhodno ugotovila, da so vsi državna pomoč.
The reShape plan foresees that on top of the LVL 83 million (EUR 117.51 million) already committed to the company, [22] additional financing of LVL [45 — 55] million (EUR [64 — 78] million) will be needed […] in the realistic scenario.
Komisija je najprej ugotovila, da je država prvo državno posojilo (ukrep 1) odobrila sočasno s posojilom družbe BAS, posojili pa sta bili odobreni v sorazmerju z deležema države in družbe ter pod enakimi pogoji, kar na prvi pogled kaže, da sta bili posojili odobreni pod enakovrednimi pogoji.
This amount would go down to LVL [5 — 15] million (EUR [7 — 21] million) in the optimistic scenario but would increase to LVL [135 — 145] million (EUR [192 — 206] million) in the pessimistic one.
Vendar je Komisija navedla, da prvega državnega posojila in posojila družbe BAS ne more oceniti ločeno, ampak v splošnem okviru določb sporazuma.
THE COMPLAINT OF 18 JULY 2012
V skladu s tem je ugotovila, da iz sporazuma ne izhaja, da mora družba BAS poleg svojega prvega posojila družbi airBaltic odobriti konvertibilno posojilo sočasno z drugim državnim posojilom, ter da so se zaveze države razlikovale od tistih, ki jih je sprejela družba BAS, in so bile pomembnejše v gospodarskem smislu.
Apart from Latvia and BAS, a number of other investors were also parties to the Agreement.
Komisija je ugotovila tudi, da se je družba BAS odločila za naložbo v družbo airBaltic, ko so javni organi že pokazali, da so pripravljeni finančno podpreti družbo.
These investors agreed to grant two syndicated loans to airBaltic for EUR 35 million each at an initial interest rate of [5 — 7] %.
Komisija je v zvezi z obrestno mero za prvo državno posojilo in znižanjem obrestne mere za [5–15] odstotnih točk, odobrenim decembra 2011 (glej uvodno izjavo 30), podvomila, da bi bile uporabljene obrestne mere v skladu s tržnimi glede na to, da je imela družba airBaltic takrat velike težave.
Syndicated loan 1 was supposed to be provided by Latvijas Krājbanka and the Lithuanian bank Snoras.
Komisija je v zvezi z drugim državnim posojilom (ukrep 2) najprej ugotovila, da je bilo predvideno že v sporazumu, čeprav njegov znesek ni bil določen in je bila njegova odobritev odvisna od več dejavnikov.
Syndicated loan 2 was supposed to be provided by several companies, among others Taurus.
Komisija je menila, da drugega državnega posojila ni mogoče šteti za enakovrednega, saj v nasprotju s trditvami Latvije sporazum družbe BAS ni zavezoval, da poleg svojega prvega posojila družbi airBaltic odobri tudi konvertibilno posojilo.
These syndicated loans were to be granted in order to novate several claims that those private investors held against airBaltic.
Poleg tega je Komisija poudarila, da v zvezi z odločitvijo Latvije za odobritev drugega državnega posojila družbi airBaltic ni bilo nobene možne sočasnosti na strani družbe BAS, saj ta družbi airBaltic ni bila dolžna odobriti nobenega drugega posojila.
In case BAS would not fulfil its commitments under the Agreement, in line with its Article 7.4, the investors who were to grant to airBaltic the syndicated loan 2 — including BAS' shareholder Taurus — agreed to ‘assign and to hand over to the State or its nominated company for the sum of LVL 1 all claims which stem from […] the outstanding [syndicated] loan nr 2’.
Komisija je v zvezi z obrestno mero za drugo državno posojilo ([9–11] %) podvomila, da bi zasebni vlagatelj družbi odobril posojilo po taki obrestni meri glede na težave, ki jih je imela družba airBaltic, in glede na dejstvo, da je bilo zavarovanje enako kot tisto, odobreno v zvezi s prvim državnim posojilom.
On 18 July 2012, the Commission received an additional complaint (see recital 7 above) regarding the obligation of the investors under Article 7.4 of the Agreement to assign and to hand over to the State or its nominated company all claims stemming from syndicated loan 2 for just LVL 1 (see recital 28 above).
Komisija je glede povečanja kapitala, dogovorjenega 22. decembra 2011 (ukrep 3), ugotovila, da je družba BAS v času sprejetja odločitve o dokapitalizaciji izgubila vse delnice družbe airBaltic razen ene (saj jih je država pridobila od banke Latvijas Krājbanka).
The complainant alleges that by letters of 9 February 2012 and 12 June 2012 the Latvian State had decided that a claim of EUR 5 million towards airBaltic for syndicated loan 2 — the part granted by Taurus, out of a total of EUR 35 million — is to be assigned to airBaltic for a price of LVL 1 (measure 6).
S tem se je delež države v družbi povečal na 99,8 % (glej uvodno izjavo 21).
THE OPENING DECISION
Zato pretvorba z gospodarskega vidika ni bila smiselna za družbo BAS, ki je morala, da bi ponovno pridobila svoj nekdanji delež, pretvoriti svoje posojilo v kapital in poleg tega vložiti 37,7 milijona LVL (53,38 milijona EUR) denarnih sredstev, pri tem pa je imela omejeno možnost za kratkoročno in srednjeročno donosnost kapitala glede na težave družbe.
On 20 November 2012, the Commission decided to open the formal investigation procedure.
Poleg tega je Komisija izrazila dvome glede datuma, ko je bil ukrep 3 dejansko odobren.
In its opening decision, the Commission came to the preliminary view that airBaltic could be considered a firm in difficulty at the time the measures identified were provided.
Komisija je ugotovila tudi, da sta morali družba BAS in država kapital v družbo airBaltic vložiti v določenem roku, domnevno do 30. januarja 2012, tj. do konca prve faze vpisa za povečanje kapitala.
It also expressed doubts as regards the six measures under assessment and came to the preliminary conclusion that all of them entailed state aid.
Država je to storila 29. ali 30. decembra 2011, družba BAS pa na koncu ni nikoli pretvorila svojega posojila ali vložila denarja.
The Commission first noted that the first State loan (measure 1) was provided by the State at the same time as the BAS loan — in proportion to their shareholdings — and at identical conditions, which at first sight would seem to suggest that the loans had been granted on pari passu terms.
Po mnenju Komisije bi morala Latvija počakati s pretvorbo svojih posojil, dokler ne bi dobila razumnega zagotovila, da bo to storila tudi družba BAS.
However, the Commission observed that it could not assess the first State loan and the BAS loan in isolation but in the overall context of the provisions of the Agreement.
Na tej podlagi je Komisija menila, da ukrep 3 ni skladen z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Accordingly, the Commission noted that from the Agreement it did not result that, in addition to the BAS loan, BAS also had to issue a convertible loan to airBaltic alongside the second State loan and that the State had made commitments that were different and economically more significant than those taken by BAS.
Komisija je v zvezi s pridobitvijo brezkuponskih obveznic v višini 30 milijonov LVL (42,47 milijona EUR) od družbe airBaltic aprila 2010 (ukrep 4) poudarila, da so te obveznice glede na njihove značilnosti primerljive s kapitalskim vložkom.
The Commission also observed that the decision of BAS to invest in airBaltic was taken in a context in which the public authorities had already demonstrated their willingness to financially support the company.
Glede na to, da je bila dobičkonosnost izključena že od samega začetka, saj se na obveznice niso zaračunavale obresti, in da se ob upoštevanju težav družbe, položaja letalske industrije in dejstva, da takrat ni bilo načrta za ponovno vzpostavitev dobičkonosnosti družbe, prihodnja dobičkonosnost ob pretvorbi ni zdela verjetna, je Komisija izrazila dvome glede skladnosti ukrepa 4 s stanjem na trgu.
In relation to the interest rate of the first State loan and the cut on the interest rate of [5-15] percentage points occurred in December 2011 (see recital 30 above), the Commission considered it doubtful that the rates applied would be at market level in view of the significant difficulties of airBaltic at the time.
Poleg tega Komisija ni mogla izključiti, da je družba BAS pridobila obveznice zaradi velikega zanimanja, ki ga je Latvija pokazala za družbo airBaltic pred izdajo obveznic.
With regard to the second State loan (measure 2) the Commission first observed that it was already foreseen in the Agreement, albeit with an undetermined amount and subject to a number of factors.
Komisija glede plačil banke Latvijas Krājbanka v višini 2,8 milijona EUR (ukrep 5) ni mogla z gotovostjo ugotoviti, ali so bila v času izvršitve teh plačil dejanja banke Latvijas Krājbanka, ki je bila v stoodstotni državni lasti, neodvisna od dejanj države.
According to the Commission, the second State loan could not be considered pari passu since from the Agreement it did not follow — contrary to what Latvia argued — that, in addition to the BAS loan, BAS also had to issue a convertible loan to airBaltic.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija navedla, da Latvija ni predložila nobenih dokazov, da je družba airBaltic plačilne naloge in naloge za prenos predložila pred odločitvijo FKTK z dne 17. novembra 2011, da omeji bančne posle s posameznimi strankami, ki presegajo 100000 EUR.
Moreover, the Commission highlighted that when Latvia decided to provide the second State loan to airBaltic, there was no possible concomitance on the side of BAS since it was under no obligation to provide any other loan to airBaltic.
Nazadnje, v zvezi s terjatvijo v višini 5 milijonov EUR, ki jo je država odstopila družbi airBaltic (ukrep 6), je Komisija v svojem sklepu o začetku postopka pojasnila, da se je Latvija v skladu s členom 7.4 sporazuma odločila, da bo terjatev do družbe airBaltic v višini 5 milijonov EUR za sindicirano posojilo 2, tj. del, ki ga je odobrila družba Taurus, od skupnega zneska 35 milijonov EUR, odstopila družbi airBaltic za 1 LVL.
In relation to the interest rate of the second State loan ([9 — 11] %), the Commission expressed doubts that a private investor would have provided the company with a loan at such an interest rate in view of the difficulties that airBaltic was facing and the fact that the collateral used was the same as that granted in relation to the first State loan.
Komisija je poudarila, da je bila ta transakcija v gospodarskem smislu zelo podobna odpisu dolga, s katerim je Latvija družbo airBaltic oprostila obveznosti plačila obresti in vračila dela sindiciranega posojila 2 imetniku terjatve.
Pertaining to the capital increase agreed on 22 December 2011 (measure 3), the Commission noted that at the time the recapitalisation decision was taken, BAS had lost all except one of its shares in airBaltic (since the State had acquired them from Latvijas Krājbanka).
Poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila, da ukrep 6 ni skladen z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, saj družba airBaltic na podlagi sporazuma ni imela pravice, da dobi posojilo v zameno za 1 LVL.
As a result, the State increased its shareholding in the company to 99,8 % (see recital 21 above).
Komisija je v zvezi z ostalimi terjatvami v okviru sindiciranega posojila 2 v skupnem znesku 30 milijonov LVL (42,47 milijona EUR) (glej uvodno izjavo 42) ugotovila, da bi zgornja obrazložitev smiselno veljala tudi za te terjatve.
Therefore, the conversion made little economic sense for BAS, who — in order to regain its former shareholding — was requested not only to convert into capital the BAS loan but also to inject LVL 37,7 million (EUR 53,38 million) in cash, all this with limited possibilities that the equity would provide any return in the short- to medium-term in view of the difficulties of the company.
Komisija je zato predhodno ugotovila, da je šest obravnavanih ukrepov pomenilo nezakonito državno pomoč, saj je njihova odobritev pomenila kršitev obveznosti priglasitve in mirovanja iz člena 108(3) PDEU.
Moreover, the Commission expressed doubts on the date at which measure 3 was actually granted.
Komisija je izrazila tudi dvome glede združljivosti šestih obravnavanih ukrepov z notranjim trgom, zlasti zato, ker latvijski organi niso navedli nobenih možnih razlogov za združljivost.
The Commission also noted that BAS and the State had a certain period of time — presumably until 30 January 2012, i.e. the end of the first stage of the subscription implementation period for the capital increase — to inject the capital in airBaltic.
Komisija je v zvezi z možnimi razlogi za združljivost ob upoštevanju težav družbe airBaltic predhodno sklenila, da se lahko uporabijo samo merila v zvezi s pomočjo za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU na podlagi Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [23] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje).
The State however did so on 29 or 30 December 2011, while BAS eventually never converted its loan or injected the cash.
V zvezi s tem in na podlagi informacij, ki so bile takrat na voljo, je Komisija menila, da pogoji za pomoč za reševanje očitno niso bili izpolnjeni in da načrt reShape ni vključeval nobenih elementov, ki jih mora načrt vključevati, da bi se štel za načrt za prestrukturiranje v smislu oddelka 3.2 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
According to the Commission, before converting the loans, Latvia should have waited until it was reasonably assured that BAS would also do so.
PRIPOMBE NA SKLEP O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
On this basis, the Commission was of the view that measure 3 did not appear to be MEIP-conform.
PRIPOMBE LATVIJE
In relation to the acquisition of LVL 30 million (EUR 42,47 million) of 0 %-coupon bonds from airBaltic in April 2010 (measure 4), the Commission highlighted that these bonds, in view of their characteristics, were comparable to a capital injection.
Latvija trdi, da je družba BAS dala pobudo za sklenitev sporazuma in je dejansko pozvala državo, naj sodeluje pri povečanju kapitala.
Given that profitability was excluded from the outset since no interest was attached to the bonds and that future profitability upon conversion appeared unlikely in view of the difficulties of the company, the situation of the airline industry, and the absence at the time of a plan for bringing the company back to profitability, the Commission raised doubts about the market-conformity of measure 4.
Na koncu se je država strinjala, da bo izvedla naložbo pod strogimi pogoji, določenimi v sporazumu.
In addition, the Commission was not able to exclude that BAS acquired the bonds because of the strong interest shown by Latvia in airBaltic before the bond issuance.
Eden izmed bistvenih elementov sporazuma je bil vložek države in družbe BAS v višini približno 100 milijonov LVL (141,58 milijona EUR), ki naj bi se izplačal v dveh fazah: (i) 30 milijonov LVL (42,47 milijona EUR) v obliki prvega državnega posojila in posojila družbe BAS ter (ii) približno 70 milijonov LVL (99,1 milijona EUR), ki naj bi jih zagotovili država in družba BAS glede na svoja deleža.
Concerning the EUR 2,8 million payments by Latvijas Krājbanka (measure 5), the Commission could not conclude with certainty whether — at the time these payments occurred — the actions of Latvijas Krājbanka, being a 100 % State-owned bank as, were independent of those of the State.
Latvija trdi, da je bila družba BAS zato pogodbeno zavezana k vložitvi dodatnega kapitala v družbo airBaltic v sorazmerju s svojim deležem.
Finally, regarding the EUR 5 million claim attributed to airBaltic (measure 6), the Commission explained in its opening decision that by virtue of Article 7.4 of the Agreement, Latvia had decided that a claim of EUR 5 million towards airBaltic for syndicated loan 2 — the part granted by Taurus, of a total of EUR 35 million — was to be assigned to airBaltic for a price of LVL 1.
Poleg tega Latvija ugotavlja, da sporazum predvideva več ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih za zaščito finančnih interesov države v primeru, da družba BAS ne bi izpolnila svojih obveznosti, in sicer: (i) pravico države, da od družbe BAS pridobi delnice v zameno za 1 LVL, (ii) obveznost zasebnih vlagateljev, ki so družbi airBaltic odobrili sindicirano posojilo 2, da svoje terjatve do družbe v določenih okoliščinah odstopijo državi, in (iii) obveznost vlagateljev, da družbi airBaltic plačajo nadomestilo za nekatere zunajbilančne obveznosti v višini približno […] milijonov EUR [24].
The Commission highlighted that in economic terms this operation was very similar to a debt waiver, by means of which Latvia was freeing airBaltic from its obligation to pay interests and to reimburse part of syndicated loan 2 to the bearer of the claim.
Dejstvo, da so se družba BAS in vlagatelji strinjali s temi ukrepi ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih, je po mnenju Latvije dokaz, da so bili vlagatelji prepričani, da bo družba BAS izpolnila svoje obveznosti.
In addition, the Commission concluded that measure 6 was not MEIP-conform since airBaltic was not entitled under the Agreement to get the credit in exchange of LVL 1.
Na tej podlagi Latvija meni, da so bili ukrepi 1, 2 in 3 sočasni in skladni z načelom razumnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
In relation to the rest of the claims under syndicated loan 2 totalling LVL 30 million (EUR 42,47 million) (see recital 42 above), the Commission noted that the reasoning above would apply mutatis mutandis to these claims.
Ker je bil ukrep 6 posledica ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih, Latvija poleg tega trdi, da tudi ta ukrep ne pomeni pomoči.
The Commission therefore came to the preliminary conclusion that the six measures under assessment entailed unlawful state aid, since they had been granted in breach of the notification and stand-still obligations established in Article 108(3) TFEU.
Latvija v zvezi z ukrepom 1 dodaja, da je bila obrestna mera skladna z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu in sporočilom o referenčnih obrestnih merah [25], ter trdi, da je bilo znižanje obrestne mere z [11–13] % na [2–4] % gospodarsko smiselno za državo, saj naj bi tako znižala stroške financiranja družbe airBaltic (ki je bila takrat že v 99,8-odstotni državni lasti).
The Commission also expressed doubts on the compatibility with the internal market of the six measures under assessment, in particular since the Latvian authorities did not provide any possible grounds for compatibility.
Latvija v zvezi z ukrepom 2 meni, da je bila obrestna mera v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Of the possible compatibility grounds, the Commission preliminarily considered — in view of the difficulties of airBaltic — that they only applicable criteria were those concerning aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU on the basis of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [23] (‘the R&R Guidelines’).
Latvija izključuje prisotnost pomoči, saj sta se družba BAS in država za to transakcijo dogovorili sočasno.
In this respect, on the basis of the information available at the time, the Commission was of the view that the conditions for rescue aid did not seem to be met, and that the reShape plan did not include any of the necessary elements for it to be considered a restructuring plan in the sense of section 3.2 of the R&R Guidelines.
Latvija v zvezi z ukrepom 6 dodaja, da je bil odstop terjatev družbi airBaltic posledica ukrepov, predvidenih v členu 7.4 sporazuma.
COMMENTS ON THE OPENING DECISION
Trdi, da to zagotavlja, da za celoten sporazum veljajo enakovredni pogoji, saj odstop terjatve družbi airBaltic zagotavlja, da zasebni vlagatelji sorazmerno prispevajo k finančnemu vložku v družbo airBaltic.
COMMENTS FROM LATVIA
Latvija v zvezi z ukrepom 4 meni, da sta država in družba BAS brezkuponske obveznice izdali sočasno in pod enakimi pogoji, kar izključuje prisotnost državne pomoči.
In its comments on the Commission's opening decision, Latvia notes that measures 1, 2, 3 and 6 were interdependent and that they derive from the Agreement, thus constituting essentially one and the same financial transaction which must be assessed at the time when the Agreement was entered into, i.e. 3 October 2011.
Latvija pojasnjuje tudi, da je bila odločitev za izdajo obveznic sprejeta na pobudo družbe BAS.
Latvia argues that BAS was the initiator of the Agreement and actually asked the State to participate in the capital increase.
Nazadnje, Latvija v zvezi z ukrepom 5 meni, da ni vključeval državnih sredstev in da dejanj FKTK v nobenem primeru ne bi bilo mogoče pripisati državi.
One of the key elements of the Agreement was an injection by the State and BAS of around LVL 100 million (EUR 141,58 million) in two stages: (i) LVL 30 million (EUR 42,47 million) in the form of the first State loan and the BAS loan, and (ii) approximately LVL 70 million (EUR 99,1 million) to be provided by the State and BAS according to their shareholding.
Vendar je med formalnim postopkom preiskave predložila argumente v zvezi s tem in trdila, da bi bila državna pomoč, če bi bila prisotna, združljiva pomoč za prestrukturiranje v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
Therefore, according to Latvia, BAS was under a contractual obligation to inject additional capital into airBaltic in proportion to its shareholding.
Na tej podlagi je Latvija decembra 2013 predložila načrt za prestrukturiranje, po katerem naj bi se prestrukturiranje družbe airBaltic začelo aprila 2011, ko je bila vodstvu družbe predložena prva različica načrta.
Latvia derives this conclusion from Article 7.2 of the Agreement, which establishes that the State would provide a second loan to airBaltic ‘in proportion to its voting rights’, which in Latvia's view means that BAS had to inject money also in proportion to its shareholding.
Načrt za prestrukturiranje predvideva petletno obdobje prestrukturiranja, ki naj bi trajalo od aprila 2011 do aprila 2016, in skupne stroške prestrukturiranja v višini [150–170] milijonov LVL ([214–242] milijonov EUR).