natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The second State loan was provided directly by Latvia through the State Treasury, by means of a decision of the Latvian Government of 13 December 2011 authorising the Ministry of Finance to provide in the State budget for a convertible loan to airBaltic of LVL 67 million (EUR 94,86 million).
Ta prednost je bila po naravi selektivna, saj je bila družba airBaltic njen edini upravičenec.
Therefore, measure 2 entails State resources and is imputable to the State.
Komisija mora poleg tega presoditi, ali bi lahko ukrep 2 zaradi prednosti družbe airBaltic pred konkurenti, ki ne prejemajo državne pomoči, izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission observes that at the time when the second State loan was provided, i.e. 13 December 2011, BAS had lost its entire shareholding in airBaltic, with the exception of one share, and the State now owned 99,8 % of the company.
Jasno je, da bi lahko ukrep 2 vplival na trgovino znotraj EU in konkurenco, saj družba airBaltic tekmuje z drugimi letalskimi prevozniki v EU, zlasti od uvedbe tretje faze liberalizacije zračnega prometa („tretji paket“) 1. januarja 1993.
Therefore, the State and BAS were no longer in a comparable position as shareholders.
Poleg tega letalski promet za potovanja na razmeroma kratkih razdaljah znotraj EU tekmuje s cestnim in železniškim prometom, zato bi lahko ukrep prizadel tudi cestne in železniške prevoznike.
Latvia argues that pursuant to Article 7.2 of the Agreement, which states that Latvia would provide a loan to airBaltic ‘in proportion to its shareholding’, BAS was obliged to provide funds to airBaltic in an amount corresponding to its number of shares.
Ukrep 2 je družbi airBaltic tako omogočil nadaljevanje poslovanja, zato se ji ni bilo treba soočiti s posledicami, ki običajno izhajajo iz takega težkega finančnega položaja.
This was to be done by BAS at the time of the capital injection of December 2011 in the form of cash.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih premislekov Komisija ugotavlja, da je ukrep 2 vključeval državno pomoč družbi airBaltic v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Commission notes, however, that on 13 December 2011 BAS only had one share in airBaltic.
Povečanje kapitala, dogovorjeno 22. decembra 2011 (ukrep 3)
It follows that the State should have adopted the position of a prudent market economy investor and assessed whether, given the change in circumstances concerning the shareholdings, BAS had any incentive to inject cash into the company at the time of the capital increase.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, prvo državno posojilo in prva tranša drugega državnega posojila vključujeta državna sredstva in ju je mogoče pripisati državi.
In fact, the State had foreseen this possibility and included in the Agreement several contingency measures — in particular in Article 7.4 — in case BAS failed to fulfil its commitments.
Njuna pretvorba v kapital je temeljila na sklepu latvijskega ministrstva za promet, ki je od 30. novembra 2011 lastnik 99,8-odstotnega deleža v družbi airBaltic.
Moreover, as Latvia acknowledges, the second tranche of the second State loan was to be released in the event that BAS failed to provide additional funds.
Zato ukrep 3 prav tako vključuje državna sredstva in ga je mogoče pripisati državi.
Article 7.4 of the Agreement gave the State the right to purchase from BAS all its shares in airBaltic for LVL 1.
Komisija se ne strinja z mnenjem latvijskih oblasti, da ukrep 3 ne pomeni pomoči.
At the time the Agreement was signed, this meant a guarantee for the State that BAS would fulfil its commitments or else would lose all its shares in airBaltic.
Najprej poudarja, da ugotovitve iz oddelka 7.2.1 veljajo za ukrep 3.
However, the situation changed radically on 30 November 2011, when Latvijas Krājbanka sold all except one of the airBaltic shares owned by BAS to the Latvian State (see recital 21 above).
Poleg tega meni, da ukrep 3 ni bil odobren 22. decembra 2011 (tj. datum srečanja delničarjev družbe airBaltic), ampak 29. decembra 2011, ko je država pretvorila svoji posojili.
In this new context, Article 7.4 was deprived of its meaning.
Glede na informacije, ki so jih latvijski organi predložili med formalnim postopkom preiskave, sta morali družba BAS in država v skladu z veljavnimi pravili pretvorbo, dogovorjeno na srečanju delničarjev družbe airBaltic, formalizirati do 30. januarja 2012.
Indeed, with only one share, BAS had little incentive to fulfil its obligations: the consequence of not doing so would simply mean losing its only share in airBaltic.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da bi lahko Latvija 29. decembra 2011 razumno dvomila o pripravljenosti družbe BAS, da izpolni svoje obveznosti.
A prudent market operator would have carefully considered providing additional funds to airBaltic under those new circumstances and, at the very least, would have asked the other party (i.e. BAS) for assurance that it would indeed commit funds to the company.
Dejansko je družba BAS že nakazala, da ne bo pretvorila svojega posojila.
The Commission notes in addition that it seems unlikely that such assurance would have been given since BAS would have needed to inject a very high amount of money — much more than it could have originally estimated — in order to regain its former shareholding of 47,2 % or any other meaningful level of shares in airBaltic.
Latvija sama priznava, da je bila druga tranša drugega državnega posojila, odobrenega 13. decembra 2011, predvidena prav za primer, da družba BAS ne bi izpolnila svojih obveznosti.
Latvia also indicates that the second State loan was granted at market terms, thereby excluding any undue advantage to airBaltic.
Poleg tega država in družba BAS kot delničarja od 30. novembra 2011 nista bili več v primerljivem položaju, saj je družba BAS izgubila ves svoj delež v družbi airBaltic z izjemo ene delnice, država pa je bila 99,8-odstotna lastnica družbe.
As regards the collateral, Latvia noted that the second State loan had the same collateral as the first State loan, i.e. receivables and the trademarks of airBaltic.
Ob upoštevanju navedenih dogodkov bi morala država, preden je dejansko pretvorila državni posojili, na podlagi dejanj družbe BAS sklepati ali vsaj sumiti, da družba ni nameravala izpolniti svojih obveznosti (glej uvodno izjavo 35).
As explained in paragraph (101) above, the liquidation value of the collateral was estimated at LVL [15 — 25] million (EUR [21,3 — 35,5] million).It thus appears that the level of collateralisation available for the second State loan would be low.
Poleg tega je družba BAS izgubila vse svoje delnice družbe airBaltic razen ene, zato pravno sredstvo, določeno v členu 7.4 sporazuma, tj. pravica države, da od družbe BAS odkupi vse njene delnice družbe airBaltic za 1 LVL, ni imelo več smisla in država je izgubila sredstva, s katerimi bi lahko družbo BAS prisilila, da spoštuje dogovor.
Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that a private market operator would accept that security already in place on the first State loan would be reduced below at least 100 %.
Ob upoštevanju navedenih elementov Komisija ugotavlja, da preudaren udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi pretvoril svojih posojil v kapital, dokler se ne bi prepričal, da bo druga pogodbenica pretvorila svoje posojilo in vložila denar, in bi v tem okviru previdno proučil spodbude druge pogodbenice za izpolnitev obveznosti.
In order to ascertain the market conformity of the rate applied to the first tranche of the second State loan, the Commission will use as the best available proxy the rate resulting from the application of the Reference Rate Communication.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da družba BAS, tudi če bi spoštovala sporazum, sklenjen na srečanju delničarjev, ne bi ponovno pridobila svojega nekdanjega deleža v družbi airBaltic.
The base rate for Latvia on 13 December 2011 was 2,2 %.
Za pridobitev 47,2-odstotnega deleža bi morala družba BAS vložiti veliko več denarja, kot je bilo dogovorjeno na navedenem srečanju.
To this figure, a margin should be added depending on the rating of the beneficiary and the collateralisation of the loan.
Zato Komisija meni, da bi morala država, če bi ravnala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, skrbno premisliti, ali bi družba BAS vložila veliko denarja, tj. posojilo in denar v višini 37,7 milijona LVL (53,38 milijona EUR), da bi dobila manjšinski delež v družbi airBaltic.
As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the level of collateralisation is low.
Dodaten argument Latvije je, da je bila obveznost družbe BAS, da vloži denar in pretvori svoje posojilo, potrjena z obstojem jamstva ruskega podjetnika Vladimirja Antonova, ki se je strinjal, da bo izvršil potrebna plačila v imenu družbe BAS [35].
Given the difficulties of airBaltic at the time, it follows from the Reference Rate Communication that a margin of 1000 basis points should be added to the base rate, resulting in a rate of 12,2 %.
Vendar se na podlagi informacij, ki jih je imela Komisija na voljo, zdi, da jamstvo v resnici ni bilo nikoli zagotovljeno.
It therefore appears that the interest rate of [9 — 11] % on the first tranche of the second State loan cannot be considered to be market conform.
Latvija trdi tudi, da so bili pogoji za kapitalizacijo državnih posojil iz člena 7.2 sporazuma izpolnjeni 13. decembra 2011, ko je prejela poslovni načrt, iz katerega je bilo razvidno, da bo družba airBaltic leta 2015 ponovno vzpostavila donosnost, in meni, da je odločitev za pretvorbo državnih posojil v kapital zato skladna z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The second tranche of the second State loan was made available to the company on 14 December 2012 at an interest rate of [6 — 8] %.
Vendar argumenti Latvije Komisije niso prepričali, saj načrt ni bil popoln in razumnega zasebnega udeleženca na trgu ne bi prepričal, naj vloži velike zneske kapitala v podjetje v težavah.
Latvia argues that this interest rate is above the one resulting from the Reference Rate Communication and is therefore MEIP-conform.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da Latvija ni ravnala pod enakovrednimi pogoji, ko je pretvorila svoja posojila in s tem povečala kapital družbe airBaltic.
According to the Reference Rate Communication, the applicable base rate for Latvia on 14 December 2012 was 1,91 %.
Ravnanje države poleg tega ni bilo v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The margin to be added to that base rate depends on the rating of the beneficiary and the level of collateralisation.
Zato je družba airBaltic prejela neupravičeno prednost, ki izhaja iz ukrepa 3, ki je selektiven, saj je bila družba njegov edini upravičenec.
As explained in section 7.1 above, the Commission is of the view that airBaltic was a firm in difficulty since at least 2011.
Komisija mora poleg tega presoditi, ali bi lahko ukrep 3 zaradi prednosti družbe airBaltic pred konkurenti, ki ne prejemajo državne pomoči, izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino med državami članicami.
In addition, the second tranche had as collateral the receivables and the trademarks of airBaltic.
Pri tem smiselno veljajo ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave 120.
The arguments about the insufficiency of the collateral would apply mutatis mutandis, and thus a margin of 1000 basis points should be added.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je pretvorba prvega državnega posojila in prve tranše drugega državnega posojila pomenila državno pomoč družbi airBaltic v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The resulting reference rate would therefore be 11,91 %, well above the [6 — 8] % actually applied.
Brezkuponske obveznice (ukrep 4)
Bearing all of the above in mind, the Commission considers that a prudent market economy operator would not have provided the second State loan to airBaltic.
Kot je že bilo navedeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, iz sporazuma z dne 30. aprila 2010, ki formalizira nakup brezkuponskih obveznic, izhaja, da je kupec LVRTC (glej uvodno izjavo 38) deloval v imenu latvijske države.
On this basis, the Commission concludes that measure 2 conferred an undue advantage on airBaltic.
Poleg tega je Latvija trdila, da je LVRTC kupil obveznice iz proračunskih razlogov.
This advantage was selective in nature given that its sole beneficiary was airBaltic.
Zato je jasno, da ukrep 4 vključuje državna sredstva in ga je mogoče pripisati državi, čemur Latvija poleg tega ne nasprotuje.
The Commission must also consider whether measure 2 was likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States, by providing airBaltic with an advantage over competitors not receiving public support.
Latvija je med formalnim postopkom preiskave predložila dokaze, ki kažejo, da sta država in družba BAS obveznice pridobili v sorazmerju s svojima deležema v družbi airBaltic in pod enakimi pogoji.
It seems clear that measure 2 was able to affect intra-EU trade and competition as airBaltic competes with other EU airlines, in particular since the entry into force of the third stage of liberalisation of air transport (‘third package’) on 1 January 1993.
Poleg tega se zdi, da je država družbi airBaltic sredstva zagotovila po aprilu 2010, družba BAS pa je v družbo dejansko vložila veliko denarja že pred navedenim datumom.
In addition, for travel of relatively shorter distances within the EU, air travel is in competition with road and rail transport, and therefore road and rail carriers might also be affected.
Nazadnje, preiskava je pokazala, da je bil sporazum o izdaji obveznic sprejet na pobudo družbe BAS in vodstva družbe airBaltic, ki je državi že aprila in junija 2009 predlagalo povečanje kapitala družbe v sorazmerju z njunima deležema.
Measure 2 thus enabled airBaltic to continue operating so that it did not have to face the consequences normally deriving from its difficult financial situation.
Kot je bilo poudarjeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, Komisija meni, da nakup brezkuponskih obveznic ni bil običajna naložba preudarnega udeleženca na trgu.
Based on the considerations set out above, the Commission comes to the conclusion that measure 2 involved state aid for the benefit of airBaltic within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da sta bili Latvija in družba BAS takrat večinska delničarja družbe airBaltic in da bi bilo treba njuno naložbeno odločitev proučiti s tega vidika in ne z vidika povsem zunanjega vlagatelja.
The capital increase agreed on 22 December 2011 (measure 3)
Res se zdi razumno sklepati, da lastniki družbe airBaltic takrat niso iskali kratkoročnega dobička, ampak so si želeli zagotoviti nadaljevanje dejavnosti družbe.
As indicated above, the first State loan and the first tranche of the second State loan entail State resources and are imputable to the State.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da je Latvija ravnala kot preudaren udeleženec na trgu, ko je kupila brezkuponske obveznice, kot je storil zasebni vlagatelj BAS.
Their conversion into capital was decided by the Ministry of Transport of Latvia, i.e. 99,8 % shareholder in airBaltic since 30 November 2011.
Komisija zato izključuje prisotnost neupravičene prednosti v zvezi z ukrepom 4, ocena ostalih kumulativnih pogojev iz člena 107(1) PDEU v zvezi s prisotnostjo državne pomoči pa ni potrebna.
Therefore, measure 3 also entails State resources and is imputable to the State.
Plačila banke Latvijas Krājbanka v višini 2,8 milijona EUR (ukrep 5)
The Commission does not share the views of the Latvian authorities that measure 3 does not entail aid.
Ukrep 5 se nanaša na plačilo v višini 2,8 milijona EUR, ki ga je družba airBaltic prejela od banke Latvijas Krājbanka 21. in 22. novembra 2011.
In the first place, the Commission reiterates that the conclusions reached in section 7.2.1 above are applicable to measure 3.
Latvija je pojasnila, da prenos sredstev izvira iz plačilnih nalogov, ki jih je družba airBaltic predložila, preden je komisija FKTK 21. novembra 2011 odredila ustavitev vseh dejavnosti banke Latvijas Krājbanka.
In addition, the Commission considers that measure 3 was granted not on 22 December 2011 (i.e. the date of the shareholders' meeting of airBaltic) but on 29 December 2011, date on which the State converted its loans.
Latvijas Krājbanka je transakciji izvršila 25. in 30. novembra 2011.
Indeed, according to the information provided by the Latvian authorities during the formal investigation procedure, according to the applicable rules BAS and the State had until 30 January 2012 to formalise the conversion decided at airBaltic's shareholders meeting.
Poleg tega komisija FKTK v skladu z zakonom o FKTK z dne 1. junija 2000 sprejema odločitve, ne da bi morala pri tem upoštevati zahteve ali navodila katerega koli drugega javnega organa.
The Commission also notes that on 29 December 2011, Latvia could have had reasonable doubts as to the willingness of BAS to fulfil its commitments.
Nadalje, financiranje komisije FKTK ni odvisno od države, saj se njene dejavnosti financirajo s plačili strani, dejavnih na latvijskem finančnem in kapitalskem trgu.
Indeed, BAS had already given indications that it would not convert its loan: Latvia itself admits that the second tranche of the second State loan, decided on 13 December 2011, was foreseen precisely to account for the eventuality that BAS would not fulfil its commitments.
Glede na veljavne zakone se zdi tudi, da država ne sodeluje pri uveljavljanju izvršilnih pooblastil in pravic FKTK v zvezi z njenim nadzorom kreditnih institucij.
Moreover, since 30 November 2011 the State and BAS were no longer in a comparable position as shareholders since BAS had lost its entire shareholding in airBaltic with the exception of one share and the State owned 99,8 % of the company.
Komisija na podlagi dokazov, ki so ji na voljo, meni, da so upravitelji, ki jih je imenovala FKTK, delovali neodvisno od države, kar bi izključilo odgovornost Latvije za njihova dejanja.
In view of those developments, the State, before actually converting the State loans, should have inferred — or at least had reasons to suspect — from BAS' actions that it did not intend to fulfil its obligations (see recital 35 above).
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep 5 ni pomenil državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Moreover, since BAS had lost all its shares in airBaltic except one, the remedy provided for in Article 7.4 of the Agreement — i.e. the right for the State to purchase from BAS all its shares in airBaltic for LVL 1 — had been deprived of meaning: the State had lost the means by which it could have forced BAS to abide by what it had agreed to.
Odstop terjatve družbe Taurus v višini 5 milijonov EUR družbi airBaltic (ukrep 6)
Bearing the elements indicated above in mind, the Commission comes to the conclusion that a prudent market economy operator would not have converted its loans into capital before being sure that the other party would convert its loan and inject the cash, and in that context would have carefully assessed the incentives of the other party to fulfil its commitments.
Dodatna pritožba, prejeta 18. julija 2012, se nanaša na obveznost vlagateljev iz člena 7.4 sporazuma, da neporavnane terjatve, ki izhajajo iz sindiciranega posojila 2, pod določenimi pogoji odstopijo državi ali njeni imenovani družbi v zameno za 1 LVL (glej uvodno izjavo 42).
Moreover, the Commission observes that, even if it had respected the agreement reached at the shareholders meeting, BAS would not have regained its former shareholding in airBaltic.
V zvezi z ostalimi terjatvami v višini 30 milijonov LVL (42,47 milijona EUR), ki naj bi se prenovile v okviru sindiciranega posojila 2, so latvijski organi z dopisom z dne 9. februarja 2012 vlagatelje pozvali, naj vsak svoje terjatve odstopi državi v zameno za 1 LVL.
In order to reach a 47,2 % stake, BAS would have had to invest much more than the amounts agreed to at that meeting.
Poleg tega je Latvija vložila tožbo pri regionalnem sodišču v Rigi v zvezi s tremi vlagatelji, da bi uveljavila člen 7.4 sporazuma.
Therefore, the Commission is of the view that the State, had it acted in accordance with the MEIP, should have carefully considered whether BAS would invest significant amounts of money — the BAS loan and cash amounting to LVL 37,7 million (EUR 53,38 million) — in order to get a minority shareholding in airBaltic.
Izrazila je svojo namero, da bo tudi te terjatve odstopila družbi airBaltic.
As an additional argument, Latvia explains that BAS' obligation to inject the cash and convert the BAS loan was confirmed by the existence of a guarantee by a Russian entrepreneur, Mr Vladimir Antonov, who agreed to make the necessary payments on behalf of BAS.
Latvija trdi, da je bil odstop terjatve v višini 5 milijonov EUR družbi airBaltic ukrep ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih, ki naj bi zaščitil finančne interese države, in da bi ga bilo treba obravnavati kot enakovreden ukrep na podlagi sporazuma, ki torej izključuje državno pomoč.
However, it appears from the information available to the Commission that the guarantee was never in fact provided.
Komisija ugotavlja, da iz člena 7.4 sporazuma jasno izhaja, da naj bi se zadevne terjatve odstopile ali prenesle na „državo ali njeno imenovano družbo za 1 LVL“.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that Latvia did not act on pari passu terms when converting its loans and therefore increasing airBaltic's capital.
Vendar dokazi, ki jih je predložila Latvija, kažejo, da so sodišča priznala veljavnost sporazuma v zvezi z obveznostjo zasebnih vlagateljev, da državi ali njeni imenovani družbi odstopijo terjatve, ki izhajajo iz sindiciranega posojila 2.
The State's behaviour was moreover not in line with the MEIP test.
V zvezi s tem Latvija navaja, da glede na več sodb latvijskih sodišč lastnik terjatve v višini 5 milijonov EUR nima pravice zahtevati vračila tega zneska, ampak lahko le zahteva delnice družbe airBaltic, ki ustrezajo predplačilu v višini 5 milijonov EUR v osnovni kapital družbe.
Therefore, airBaltic received an undue advantage resulting from measure 3, which is selective as the company was the sole beneficiary.
Ker je država že bila lastnica 99,8 % delnic družbe airBaltic, Latvija trdi, da upravičenost do dodatnih delnic za državo ni pomenila nobene pomembne gospodarske vrednosti.
The Commission must also consider whether measure 3 was likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States, by providing airBaltic with an advantage over competitors not receiving public support.
Čeprav so sodišča priznala pravico države, da v skladu s členom 7.4 sporazuma prevzame terjatve, ki izhajajo iz sindiciranega posojila 2, Komisija ugotavlja, da v nasprotju s trditvami Latvije to ne pomeni, da je bila Latvija to terjatev dolžna odstopiti družbi airBaltic.
The conclusions reached in recital 120 above apply mutatis mutandis.
Komisija ugotavlja, da preudaren udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi odstopil terjatve družbi airBaltic za 1 LVL.
The Commission thus concludes that the conversion into capital of the first State loan and the first tranche of the second State loan entailed State aid to airBaltic within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Latvija ni predložila dokazov o tem, zakaj je bilo za državo bolje, da je odstopila terjatev družbi airBaltic, kot da bi jo obdržala ali jo uporabila za drug namen.
The 0 %-coupon bonds (measure 4)
Z odstopom terjatve je Latvija družbo postavila v boljši položaj, kot ga imajo njeni konkurenti.
As already indicated in the opening decision, it follows from the 30 April 2010 agreement formalising the purchase of the 0 %-coupon bonds that the purchaser LVRTC (see recital 38 above) acted on behalf of the Latvian State.
Poleg tega se Komisija ne strinja z argumenti latvijskih organov in poudarja, da bi imel kakršen koli dodaten delež v družbi airBaltic za državo dodatno vrednost, pa čeprav majhno, zato prisotnosti pomoči ni mogoče izključiti [36].
In addition, Latvia has argued that bonds were purchased by the LVRTC for budgetary reasons.
Nadalje, država se je z odstopom terjatve družbi airBaltic odpovedala terjatvi in tudi vsem pravicam do obresti nanjo po [5–7]-odstotni obrestni meri.
In addition, it appears that the State did not provide funding to airBaltic before April 2010, while BAS had actually invested significant amounts in the company before that date.
Poleg tega država ni bila zavezana k odstopu terjatev, na katere se nanaša navedena določba, družbi airBaltic.